ECU Group plc v HSBC Bank plc and others

Disclosure and inspection of documents Pre-action disclosure. The Commercial Court granted the applicant company's application for pre-action disclosure under CPR 31.16 against the three respondent banks in the HSBC group. The court held that there was, in principle, a real prospect that pre-action disclosure would be likely to shed real and direct light on whether there had been currency market front-running by the respondents, which could found possible claims by the company for breach of contract, among other things.

Zumax Nigeria Ltd v First City Monument Bank plc

Practice Summary judgment and striking out. The claimant Nigerian company's application for summary judgment succeeded regarding nine of ten payments made into bank accounts controlled by the defendant bank. The Chancery Division held that the defendant had no real prospect of defending the claim.

Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd and another company v Al-Sanea and another

Practice Summary judgment. The claimant companies' application for summary judgment was allowed, in a case involving Islamic finance transactions known as Sukuk. The Commercial Court held that the application of both claimants was allowed against the first defendant, but only the second defendant's application for summary judgment was allowed against the second defendant.

Roadpeace v Secretary of State for Transport

European Union Directive. It was not in issue that the restriction of compulsory insurance to the use of a motor vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads and to its use on a road or public place was not consistent with the decision in Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav d.d (). However, the Administrative Court held that only a declaration would be granted and dismissed the claimant's judicial review proceedings in all other respects.

*Tinsley (by his litigation friend and property and affairs deputy) v Manchester City Council (Local Government Association intervening)

Mental health Persons who lack capacity. It was not lawful for the defendant local social services authority to refuse to provide after-care services to the claimant, under of the Mental Health Act 1983, on the basis that the claimant had no need of such provision because he was able to fund it himself from his personal injuries damages. The Court of Appeal Civil Division upheld the decision of the High Court in so deciding that point of law.

Revill (a protected party proceeding by his litigation friend) v Damiani

Practice Settlement of action. CPR 21.10, which required court approval of a compromise with a protected party, was not inconsistent with art 14, read with art 6, of the European Convention on Human Rights, as it was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of ensuring the protection of protected parties. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant had been entitled to withdraw from the compromise of the claimant protected party's proceedings for damages following a road traffic accident before the compromise had been approved.

*Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council

Negligence Duty of care. The defendant local authority was vicariously liable to the claimant for the abuse she had suffered as a child whilst being placed with foster parents while in the care of the defendant. The Supreme Court found that the conditions in the case of Cox v Ministry of Justice had been met and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal Civil Division. However the Supreme Court found that the authority was not under a non-delegable duty of care.

*Reyes and another v Al-Malki and another

Constitutional law Diplomatic privilege. Where the first respondent's functions as a diplomatic agent had come to an end in London, he had not been entitled to any immunity, under art31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and the residual immunity, under art39(2) of that Convention, could not apply, because the respondents' employment or treatment of the appellant (a Philippine domestic worker, who had alleged human trafficking) had not amounted to acts performed in the course of the first respondent's official functions. So held the Supreme Court in allowing the appellant's appeal against the lower court's decision that the employment tribunal had had no jurisdiction to hear her employment claims, because the first respondent had been entitled to diplomatic immunity, under art 31, and the that his wife had been entitled to residual immunity. Further, the court, in dismissing the respondents' cross-appeal, agreed with the lower court that there had been valid service of the employment claim on the respondents.

Pablo Star Media Ltd v Bowen

Copyright Infringement. A district judge had not erred in finding that a flagrant infringement of copyright concerning a famous photograph of the poet, Dylan Thomas, and his wife, had not been established, or in his approach to damages, applying the 'user principle'. Further, the district judge had not erred on costs. So ruled the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in dismissing the claimant company's appeal after it had obtained judgment in default and damages of 250, plus interest, but where the district judge had declined to award the claimant additional damages or its costs, and had, instead, ordered it to pay the defendant's travelling costs.

Kovarska v Otkritie International Investment Management Ltd and others

Court of Appeal Time for appeal. The grant to the defendant, K, of a two-year extension of time for her application for permission to appeal against a final order, permission to appeal on nine grounds and permission to adduce new evidence, would be set aside, under CPR 52.9. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that there were compelling reasons to do so, as the court had been misled by serious misrepresentations and non-disclosures made by K or by her legal representatives.