European Union Immigration. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the second paragraph of art 6 of Council Regulation (EC) 343-2003 (establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national). The request had been made in proceedings between MA, BT and DA, three children who were third-country nationals, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department (United Kingdom) (the Secretary of State) concerning the Secretary of State's decision not to examine their asylum applications which had been lodged in the United Kingdom and to propose that they be transferred to the member state in which they had first lodged an application for asylum.
European Union Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the principles of effectiveness and equivalence in the light of the rules applicable in the Austrian legal system to actions for damages in respect of a breach of European Union competition law. The request had been made in proceedings brought before the Higher Regional Court, Vienna (the referring court)sitting as a Cartel Court, concerning an application lodged by the Verband Druck & Medientechnik, an association of undertakings, seeking access to the file relating to judicial proceedings brought by the Austrian Federal Competition Authority against Donau Chemie AG and other companies, which had culminated in a final judgment from the referring court ordering the latter to pay a fine owing to their participation in agreements and concerted practices contrary to art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Limitation of action When time begins to run. The claimant had instructed the defendant firm of solicitors to act for her in respect of a personal injury claim. She subsequently brought proceedings against those solicitors for professional negligence. The claim was dismissed on the ground that it was time-barred by virtue of s2 of the . The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal and held that, in the circumstances, the negligence claim had been issued in time.
Practice Summary judgment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant company's appeal against the judge's refusal to strike out the claimant company's claim. On the facts, it was realistically arguable that an entire agreement clause did not operate as a bar to any of the claims and the decision was not one with which the court should interfere.
Accountant Negligence. The claimant sought damages against his accountants for failing to advise him of steps to eliminate or reduce his liability for capital gains tax. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing his claim, held that the defendants had breached their contractual and tortious duties to advise the claimant to obtain specialist tax advice.
Landlord and Tenant Tenancy agreement. The issue on appeal was whether 700, paid by the defendant as rent, although reserved as rent as part of the claimant's Flexibuy scheme, was in fact intended to be a composite payment with a substantial deposit element. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that there was nothing in the option to buy agreement which gave the tenant a proprietary claim to the deposit incentive.
Citizenship British citizen. The appellant was a Vietnamese national with British citizenship. He was suspected of involvement in terrorism activities. Consequently, the Secretary of State decided to revoke his British nationality on the ground that it would be conducive to the public good. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission allowed his appeal on the basis that to deprive him of his British citizenship would render him stateless. The Secretary of State appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant would be rendered de facto stateless and not de jure stateless, and that therefore the Secretary of State's order did not fall foul of s40(4) of the .
Conflict of laws Jurisdiction. The claimant bank, which was registered in Mauritius, entered into a facility agreement with the first defendant company (the original facility agreement). The Second defendant company guaranteed the first defendant's obligations. The original facility agreement provided that the governing law was the law of Mauritius. The parties entered into a new agreement, which provided that the governing law was English law. The first defendant defaulted on the repayment of the loan and the claimant brought a claim in England for outstanding amounts. The defendants applied for an order setting aside the claim form on the grounds that the English court did not have jurisdiction to try the claim. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the application, held that on the true construction of the new agreement, the English court had jurisdiction.
Sex establishment Control. The claimants were licensed sex establishments. The defendant local authority charged a licence fee which included the administrative costs associated with processing applications for the licence and the cost of enforcing the licensing regime. Following the coming into force of the Provision of Services Regulations 2009, , the claimants issued judicial review proceedings challenging the fee levied by the authority. The judge held, inter alia, that the it was unlawful for the licence fee to include an element in respect of the cost of enforcing the licensing regime and that the claimants were entitled to restitution. The authority appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had not erred in his construction of the Regulations, but that appeal in respect of restitution should be allowed in part.
Landlord and tenant Repair. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, where damage had been caused to the demised premises of the claimant tenants under leases with the defendant landlord due to leaks of pipes on property retained by the landlord, there was no implied term that the landlord had been in breach as soon as the defect had occurred and caused the damage. The judge had been correct to find that there was a duty on the part of the landlord to remedy any defects in the retained premises which would cause damage to the demised premises; the scope of that duty being to take reasonable care to remedy the defects in the retained premises which the landlord knew had caused, or were likely to cause, damage to the demised premises.