Judetul Neamt v Ministerul Dezvoltarii si Administratiei Publice; Judetul Bacau v Ministerul Dezvoltarii si Administratiei Publice
European Union Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made determinations as preliminary rulings on the interpretation of and in two actions concerning the validity of administrative measures addressed to contracting authorities, which required them to repay part of grants that they had received in their capacity as contracting authorities which had organised public procurement procedures relating to operations eligible for grants.
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.
Bankruptcy Property available for distribution. The Bankruptcy High Court allowed an application for relief by trustees in the bankruptcy of DD, who had made his living from residential and commercial property and was indebted to around the sum of 2.8m. The court held that money in certain accounts belonged to DD, that a flat which had been purchased out of money from one of the accounts was a bankruptcy asset, and that the transfer of shares in a company controlled by DD had been a sham.
Competition Merger. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) had found there to have been a relevant merger situation under s22(1) of the arising from the appellant's acquisition of cross-channel ferries from SeaFrance's liquidator and its employment of the majority of former SeaFrance employees, as a consequence of a statutory indemnity payment to the appellant for employing those redundant workers. The decision was upheld by the Competition Appeals Tribunal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal as the CMA's finding that upon such mass re-employment there had been in reality a transfer, or a transfer 'in effect' by SeaFrance, had been irrationally wrong and one that could not properly have been made.
Contract Rectification. The claimant and another businessman sold shares in a shipping company to the defendant company. A dispute arose as to the value of the shares. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, the agreement between the parties had not reflected their common intention, and an order for rectification would be made.
Copyright Infringement. The claimant brought proceedings alleging copying of its training manual used by those who taught techniques for physical restraint. It alleged that the first defendant had infringed certain copyright works by reason of the creation of its own manual. The alleged copyright works included photographs, literary and dramatic works. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held, inter alia, that, on the evidence, the first defendant had not at any stage been granted a licence to copy any of the photographs and, whenever it had done so, it had infringed the claimant's copyright. However, the claimant's case regarding literary and dramatic works failed.
Competition Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Competition Appeal Tribunal dismissed the applications brought by Groupe Eurotunnel SA (Eurotunnel) and Societe Cooperative de Production Sea France SA under of the Enterprise Act 2002 for judicial review of a decision of the Competition and Markets Authority in relation to the completed acquisition by Eurotunnel of certain assets from the liquidator of SeaFrance SA.
*R (on the application of Unison (no. 2)) v Lord Chancellor (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening)
Employment tribunal Procedure. The claimant trade union sought judicial review of the fee scheme for employment applications and appeals introduced by the Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal Feels Order 2013, . The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had not shown that the principle of effectiveness had been infringed or that there had been indirect discrimination, in particular, against women.
Arbitration Injunction. The claimant applied, under of the Arbitration Act 1996, for an injunction to restrain the defendant from terminating a licence agreement pending the resolution of arbitration. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that there was a serious issue to be tried as to whether or not the proposed termination was wrongful and ineffective. However, the claimant was unable to show that damages were an inadequate remedy, as it was not unjust to the claimant to exclude the effect of a clause potentially limiting damages when considering whether or not it should be left to its remedy in damages.
Restraint of trade by agreement Employer and employee. The first defendant left the claimant recruitment company to work for the second defendant recruitment company. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claimant's claim for damages arising from the breach of restrictive covenants contained in the first defendant's contract. The restrictions had, subject to severing one phrase from two of the restrictions, been legally enforceable, the first defendant had been in breach and the second defendant had procured those breaches.