Income tax Partnership. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review of partner payment notices issued by the defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners, under to the Finance Act 2014 (Sch 32). There was no distinction between general partnerships and limited liability partnerships for the purposes of Sch 32 and sufficient notice of enquiry into a tax return had been given.
Employment Contract of service. The Queen's Bench Division awarded the claimant damages and final injunctive relief following the finding that the first defendant, a former employee of the claimant, had breached his duty of fidelity and confidence both during and after his employment with the claimant and in breach of the restrictive covenant which had been part of his contract of employment.
Company Director. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing a company's appeal against a judge's ruling that its claim for breach of fiduciary or statutory duty was time-barred, held that of the Limitation Act 1980, which provided that no period of limitation prescribed by the Act applied to an action by a beneficiary under a trust 'to recover from the trustee trust property or the proceeds of trust property in the possession of the trustee, included a transfer to a company directly or indirectly controlled by the trustee. Accordingly, no period of limitation applied to the present claim. Further, the availability of a postponed limitation period, such that those proceedings had been commenced in time, under s 32 of the Act, could not be determined on an application for summary judgment.
Heraeus Medical GmbH (a company incorporated under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany) and another v Biomet UK Healthcare Ltd and others
Conflict of laws Jurisdiction. The Chancery Division dismissed applications made by the defendant company to challenge the jurisdiction of the England and Welsh courts in a claim involving the alleged misuse of the claimants' confidential information regarding the manufacture of cement in orthopaedic operations. England and Wales was the appropriate forum in which to bring the case in the event that it was established that related proceedings in Germany did not cover UK acts.
Libel and slander Defamatory statement. The Queen's Bench Division in a claim for libel held that the substantial truth of the meanings imputed to the words complained of had been made out and therefore the claimant's claim against his former manager had to fail.
Trade mark Infringement. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court dismissed the claimant's application for declarations and related relief challenging the decision of the Administrative Panel of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. The court held that the mere registration of a domain name
Equity Breach of confidence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed both an appeal and a cross-appeal in relation to the assessment of damages and interest in an action for breach of confidence concerning certain long-lasting insecticidal mosquito nets.
Employment Contract of service. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant's claim for declaratory relief that the restrictive covenants regarding subsequent employment were invalid would be dismissed and that the defendant employer's counterclaim for the enforcement of the covenants would be allowed.
Company Administration. The Chancery Division allowed the applicant administrators' applications concerning a number of payments made by the first respondent company director and the second respondent company and arising out of the insolvency of the second respondent company. The court held that the interests of the company's creditors had plainly been engaged, and the respondents were ordered to make repayments.
Consumer credit Agreement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed in part an appeal against a finding by the county court judge that there had been no unfairness in the parties' relationship contrary to s140A of the . The appeal was allowed in respect of a procuration fee paid by the respondent lender to the appellant's broker of which the appellant had been unaware. A relationship between lender and borrower which involved such a payment deprived the borrower of the disinterested advice of his broker and was, for that reason, unfair.