European Union Insurance. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling in which it decided that on the basis that the Directives at issue, art 47 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Internal Regulations of the Council of Bureaux, adopted by the Agreement of 30 May 2002 between the national insurers' bureaux of the member states of the European Economic Area and other Associate States were not applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings. Consequently, the consequences arising from the case-law of the referring court to the effect that, for the purposes of the subrogated claim, the burden of proof relating to all of the elements establishing the civil liability of the defendants in the main proceedings for the accident which had occurred on 20 July 2006, rested with the Bureau of Motor Insurers of Lithuania.
Insolvency Individual voluntary arrangement. The claimant bank brought a claim against the defendant for possession of two properties in respect of which charges had been granted to the bank, as part security for loans to the defendant's company. The defendant counterclaimed. The district judge allowed the bank's application for summary judgment on part of the counterclaim.However, summary judgment was not granted on the defendant's claim that the effect of an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA), which he had entered into with his creditors, was that the bank's claim against him was time-barred. The Chancery Division, in allowing the bank's appeal, in part, held that there had been no reason for the district judge to exclude, from the summary judgment, the defendant's counterclaim based on the effect of the IVA. The court rejected the defendant's argument on limitation, in circumstances where the IVA had not been terminated by certificate, but by effluxion of time, and held that there would be a complete judgment for the bank on the defendant's counterclaim.
Disclosure and inspection of documents Pre-action disclosure. The Queen's Bench Division granted the applicants orders for pre-action disclosure in respect of potential libel proceedings. It was right to make the orders for disclosure proposed by the respondents and accepted by the applicants because it was common ground that there was jurisdiction to make the order and it was right to do so as a matter of discretion.
Bank Letters of credit. The Commercial Court ruled on a dispute between the claimant bank (Deutsche -the confirming bank), and the defendant bank (CIMB -the issuing bank), concerning Deutsche's claim for reimbursement of sums it had allegedly paid to a company (as beneficiary), under letters of credit issued by CIMB. Deutsche had argued that the issuing bank, under a letter of credit, had to accept, on its face, a statement by the confirming bank that it had paid the beneficiary under letters of credit, and that CIMB had no right to request further information in respect of that payment. The court held that, on the true construction of art7(c) of the Uniform Customs & Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 600), read with the definition of 'honour' in art2 of UCP 600, an issuing bank's undertaking to reimburse a confirming bank arose where the confirming bank had honoured a complying presentation by making payment under the credit. It further held that, in circumstances where Deutsche had been put to proof that it had honoured presentations by the beneficiary, and where it had made assertions as to payment, CIMB was entitled to ask for further information in the usual way. However, it further ruled that the court should not entertain requests seeking unduly to investigate the confirming bank's payment arrangements, in the hope that something by way of a defence would turn up.
Practice Parties. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a court could and should exercise its procedural powers to permit an amendment of a claim form to allow a claimant to substitute an unnamed defendant driver, identified by reference to the specific vehicle which he was driving at a specific time and place, and consequently, to enable judgment to be obtained against such a defendant, which an identified insurer was required to satisfy, pursuant to of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Costs Appeal to Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division upheld a decision by a costs judge which allowed the recoverability of solicitors' costs in personal injury proceedings from a private retainer despite the case being initially covered by a public funding certificate. Even though there had been no formal discharge, as a matter of substance, services provided under the public funding had come to an end before the solicitors acted on a private retainer.
Practice Funds in court. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against the judge's decision, directing that a sum in the Court Funds Office be paid to the claimant. Although the judge had reached his decision by the application of the wrong principles, he had had properly rejected the defendant's submission that it had not had an interest in the money.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division allowed an appeal by the claimant waste management company against the strike-out of a claim made against the third defendant. The court held that the judge had been wrong to have given summary judgment in respect of all of the claims, but should have been confined to the damages claim for conspiracy.
Iqbal and another v J C and A Solicitors Ltd; Smith and another v J C and A Solicitors Ltd; Pitts and another v J C and A Solicitors Ltd
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the judge had been wrong in his construction of the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in road traffic accidents. There was no express provision for repayment of the stage 1 costs in the relevant circumstances and therefore no such right could be properly be implied.
Practice Striking out. The Chancery Division allowed the defendants' application to strike out and-or for summary judgment on a number of claims commenced by the claimant, following his summary dismissal from a company. The court held that the claims should not go forward.