Competition Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled on an appeal by Eurotunnel and another ferry operator against a decision by the Competition Commission in which the Commission had decided that by buying certain assets of SeaFrance SA, which had been in liquidation, a relevant merger situation had been created which had resulted or might result in a substantial lessening of competition in the market for the supply of transport services to freight customers on the short sea.
Contract Construction. The claimant brought subrogated claims against the parties who originally designed certain flats that were destroyed as a result of a water leak. No single organisation had overall control of the design, installation, supervision, inspection, testing and acceptance of the boosted mains cold water system (BMCWS). The various different contracts and subcontracts resulted in pipework systems which, on completion, varied markedly from core to core, even though they should have been the same in each. The litigation involved five parties, with different defences and claims up and down the line, depending precisely on where the parties sat in the contractual chain. The Technology and Construction Court determined the claim on the facts.
Proceeds of crime Civil recovery of proceeds of unlawful conduct. A property freezing order ordered the balance of the first defendant's funds in a Luxembourg bank to be brought within the jurisdiction. The defendants sought an order that the money should be returned, following the subsequent decision in Perry v Serious Organised Crime Agency (). The claimant Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) sought to rely on similar fact evidence of the first defendant's conviction for money laundering in the United Arab Emirates. The Queen's Bench Division held that the money had been lawfully brought within the jurisdiction and there were no grounds for returning it to Luxembourg. It further held that it would be open to SOCA to use the disclosure order to obtain information which related to the first defendant's criminal conduct.
Copyright Newspaper. The claimant, who was married to the actress Kate Winslett, sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant newspaper from publishing photographs of him partially dressed at a party. The photographs had been taken by a guest at the party and had been published on Facebook. The claimant had subsequently been assigned the copyright in the photographs. The Chancery Division, in granting the application, held that, on the facts, the claimant's right to privacy under art8 of the European Convention of Human Rights had plainly been engaged by the defendant's threat both to publish the photographs and to publish a description of their content. The claimant was more likely than not to succeed at trial in vindicating his art8 rights as against the defendant's right to freedom of speech under art10 of the Convention.
Guarantee Bankruptcy. The Chancery Division considered the claimant's appeal against the court of first instance's refusal to set aside a statutory demand made by the defendant solicitors' firm. Although the standard of proof used by the judge at first instance had been unclear, none of the claimant's arguments demonstrated a triable issue, and therefore the appeal would be dismissed.
Nelson and others v Deutsche Lufthansa AG; R (on the application of) TUI Travel plc and others v Civil Aviation Authority
European Union Transport. The Court of Justice of the European Union made preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation and validity of arts 5 to 7 of Regulation (EC) 261-2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights) (the Regulation), and repealing Regulation (EEC) 295-91. The rulings were made in relation to two references (Cases and ), the latter case being referred by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, concerning proceedings between, on the one hand, TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc, easyJet Airline Company Ltd and the International Air Transport Association and, on the other, the Civil Aviation Authority, concerning that latter's refusal to guarantee to them that it would not interpret the Regulation as imposing an obligation on airlines to compensate passengers in the event of delay to their flights.
European Union Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 7 of Directive 96-9-EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the legal protection of databases). The reference had been made in proceedings between Football Dataco Ltd, Scottish Premier League Ltd, Scottish Football League and PA Sport UK Ltd and Sportradar GmbH and Sportradar AG concerning, amongst other things, an alleged infringement by Sportradar of the sui generis right which Football Dataco and others claimed to have in a database relating to football league matches in progress (Football Live).
*MedImmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd and another; Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd v MedImmune Ltd and another
Patent Validity. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered an appeal from the Patents Court of the Chancery Division, concerning the alleged infringement by the defendant company of two patents in the manufacture of a product used for the treatment of macular degeneration of the eye. It held that the judge had not erred in determining the skilled team to whom the patent was addressed, or in assessing obviousness or phage display, and hence the appeal was dismissed.
Employment Remuneration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employees' appeal against, inter alia, the decision of the employment tribunal to dismiss their claims for guarantee payments as s28(1) of the did not preclude an agreed temporary variation constitutinga change to an employee's normal working hours so as to prevent the award of a guarantee payment merely because the variation was temporary.
Nuisance Smell. The claimants had complained that the defendant company, Norton Aluminium Ltd, had caused nuisance by the emission of odour, noise, and particulate matter-dust from its foundry to which the claimants lived close by to as residential residents. The Queen's Bench Division held, inter alia, that the claimants had failed to establish a legal nuisance by way of dust and noise emanating from the foundry but had established an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of their properties by reason of odour for a period beginning in mid 2003 and ending in mid 2010.