*Re Nortel GMBH and other companies; Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) and other companies
Company Administration order. The Chancery Division of the High Court ruled on the application by the administrators of the Lehman and Nortel group of companies as to the issue of whether in circumstances where a financial support direction (FSD) or a contribution notice (CN) was first issued after an associated company had gone into administration or liquidation, it imposed any, and if so what, obligation on the associated company and its office-holders. The critical issue was whether the cost of complying with an FSD, or the monetary obligation imposed by a CN, ranked in the administration or liquidation of the target as a provable debt, or as an expense, or neither of those, so that it was recoverable only in the very unlikely event that there was a surplus otherwise available for distribution to members after all creditors had been paid in full.
Contract Construction. Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court: Where the parties had entered into three agreements regarding the transmission of television programmes on a terrestrial television, ITV, which provided for a fee to be paid to the claimant if the programme was to be repeated on that channel, the claimant was not entitled to a repeat fee since the repeat programmes had been transmitted on digital television channels ITV2 and ITV3 which had not been provided for in the agreement.
*The Incorporated Trustees of the National Council on Ageing (Age Concern England) v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Case C-388/7)
European Community Employment. European Court of Justice: National rules such as regs3, 7(4) and (5) and (30) of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, fell within the scope of Council Directive (EC) 2000-78 (establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation). Article6(1) of the Directive did not require a precise list of the aims justifying derogation from the principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age. However, the option to derogate from that principle was only in respect of measures justified by legitimate social policy objectives. Moreover, it imposed on member states the burden of establishing to a high standard of proof the legitimacy of the aim relied on as a justification.
Evidence given in cross examination in an earlier hearing was admissible in long-running litigation for the purposes of a future hearing in which the admissibility of certain documents would be determined.