Injunction Interlocutory. The Chancery Division dismissed an application by the claimant zoo and its director for an interim injunction to restrain the defendant animal's campaigning charity from using photographs or videos taken of animals at the zoo. Overall, balancing all factors, there was no sufficient likelihood that the claimant would obtain a final injunction at trial based on any of the causes of action to justify the interference with journalistic freedom of speech which an interim injunction would involve.
*R (on the application of British American Tobacco Ltd and others) v Secretary of State for Health; R (on the application of Philip Morris Brands SARL and others) v Secretary of State for Health; R (on the application of JT International SA and another) v Secretary of State for Health; and other applications
Advertisement Control. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant tobacco companies' application for judicial review, challenging the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015, , which restricted the ability of tobacco companies to advertise their brands on tobacco packaging or upon tobacco products themselves. The Regulations had been lawful when they had been promulgated by Parliament and in the light of the most up-to-date evidence.
Contract Enforceability. The Chancery Division held that the claimant companies were not entitled to possession of two undated Land Registry Form DS1s executed by the defendant company, which were in the custody of solicitors. On the true construction of correspondence between the parties, the solicitors had not been released from its obligations to the defendant. The claimant's acceptance of offers had not given rise to contracts.
Contract Repudiation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against a finding that it had breached an agreement between the parties and that it was liable to pay the claimant commission on renewals of insurance policies that had been introduced by the claimant. On the proper construction of the agreement, the claimant had been in repudiatory breach of a condition of the agreement and the defendant had lawfully terminated the agreement. The claimant was not entitled to damages and, following the normal rule on continuing obligations of an innocent party following termination for repudiation, the defendant had no liability for renewal commissions.
Disclosure and inspection of documents Production of documents. The Competition Appeal Tribunal held that it had the power to make an order that the non-party applicants were entitled, under the principle of open justice, to have access to documents from the parties to proceedings that raised similar allegations and that the applicants were entitled to those documents in the instant case.
Family proceedings Confidential information in care proceedings. The Family Division in an application by the local authority seeking guidance in respect of the disclosure of personal information regarding a boy of 15 years of age in foster care. It was held that having regard to the arts 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the information should be withheld from the child's family as was his wish.
Contract Termination. The Technology and Construction Court considered a dispute concerning a contract under which the defendant company had provided repair and maintenance services to the claimant company's housing stock. It held that, among other things, the claimant's construction of the contract with regard to levels of minimum acceptable performance and profit performance threshold was to be preferred.
Sale of goods Passing of property. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that arbitrators had correctly concluded that a contract for bunkers of fuel oil and gasoilhad not been one of sale within s2 of the with the result that the appellants could have no possible defence under s49 of the Act to the claim for the price. Further, it was not subject to any implied term, regarding performance by the first respondent (or its parent company) of any supply contract higher up the chain, though it was, no doubt, subject to an implied promise by the first respondent that the first respondent was entitled to supply them to the appellants on terms permitting their use for the propulsion of the vessel before payment.
Contract Formation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the judge's decision that there had been a binding contract between the parties, formed by the claimant (Reveille) accepting through conduct a written agreement, which had been signed by the defendant (Anotech), but not Reveille. It held that Reveille had waived the provision that there would be no binding contract in the absence of its signature on the agreement, and there had been no prejudice from that to Anotech. There had been acceptance by conduct on Reveille's part of the terms of the agreement, which had led to a binding contract.
Employment Unfair dismissal. The Privy Council dismissed both an appeal and a cross-appeal concerning the respondent's dismissal from his employment with the appellant. It considered whether there had been constructive dismissal, whether the respondent's conduct had justified dismissal, and whether the Supreme Court of Mauritius had miscalculated the remuneration package.