Gibbs v Leeds United Football Club Ltd

Employment Contract of service. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was constructively dismissed, by reason of a repudiatory breach of contract by his employer Leeds United Football Club and therefore was entitled to damages for that breach less the amount of any bonuses to be received in respect of his current job.

Brown's Bay Resort Ltd v Pozzoni

Contract Breach. The Privy Council dismissed the appellant's appeal against, among other things, a decision that a clause in a lease of part of a resort, granted by the appellant to the respondent, did not restrict the respondent's right to claim damages for breach of contract. It held that, absent any indication in the wording of the clause in the context of the lease as a whole that the 'penalty fee' was to be in substitution for common law damages for breach of contract, the fee would be construed as an additional charge on the occurrence of an interruption caused by a breach of contract.

Sinues v Caixabank SA and another

European Union Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of of Council Directive (EEC) 93-13. The requests had been made in proceedings between, in one case, Mr Sales Sinus and Caixabank SA and, in the other, Mr Drame Ba and Catalunya Caixa SA, both relating to the annulment of contractual terms in mortgage loan agreements.

*Goldtrail Travel Ltd (in Liquidation) v Aydin and others

Company Director. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on an appeal against findings that the appellants had dishonestly assisted A, the 100% owner and sole director of the respondent company, to breach his duties to that company under of the Companies Act 2006, and had dishonestly assisted A in misapplying 1.25m of the company's money. It dismissed the appeal, save that the judge's conclusion that the appellants were liable to compensate the company for a particular sum of 500,000, as part of the misapplication claim, would be reversed.

*Transocean Drilling UK Ltd v Providence Resources plc (The Arctic III)

Contract Damages for breach. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal against the judge's decision that the defendant was entitled to recover spread costs for a period of delay caused by the claimant's breach of contract. The language of the exclusion clause in the contract in LOGIC form was clear and was apt to exclude liability for wasted costs in the form of the spread costs which the defendant sought to recover.

Axon v Ministry of Defence

Equity Breach of confidence. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing a claim for misuse of private information and-or breach of confidence, held that the claimant had not had a reasonable expectation of privacy in any of the information in issue and a source within the defendant Ministry of Defence (the MOD) had not owed him (as opposed to the MOD) a duty of confidence.

Partner Apelski Dariusz v Zarzad Oczyszczania Miasta

European Union Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of , and of Directive (EC) 2004-18. The request had been made in proceedings between Partner Apelski Dariusz (Partner) and the Warsaw municipal cleansing authority concerning Partner's exclusion from the procedure for the award of a public contract for the comprehensive mechanical cleansing of roadways of the city of Warsaw (Poland) in the years from 2014 to 2017.

Bartholomews Agri Food Ltd v Thornton

Restraint of trade by agreement Employer and employee. The Queen's Bench Division, in refusing an application for an interim injunction against the respondent, a former employee, in which it sought to enforce the terms of a restrictive covenant contained in the respondent's contract of employment, held that the relevant clause was in restraint of trade and unenforceable. The clause also provided that the respondent would continue to be paid in full by his former employer for the duration of the covenant, provided that he complied with the restriction. The covenant was plainly far wider than was reasonably necessary for the protection of the applicant's business interests. It was contrary to public policy in effect to permit an employee to purchase a restraint.

*One Step (Support) Ltd v Morris-Garner and another

Restraint of trade by agreement Employer and employee. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendants' appeal in respect of the judge's findings of breaches of non-compete and non-solicitation covenants in the sale of a business providing 'supported living' services for children leaving care and vulnerable adults. Further, it upheld the judge's conclusion that an award of damages on the Wrotham Park basis (see Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd[) was the just response in the present case.

Minister Finansow v Aspiro SA

European Union Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that of Council Directive (EC) 2006-112 should be interpreted as meaning that claims settlement services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, provided by a third party in the name and on behalf of an insurance company, did not fall within the exemption laid down by that provision.