European Union Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the fifth paragraph of art 10a of Council Directive (EEC) 85-337 (on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment) and the fifth paragraph of art 15a of Council Directive (EC) 96-61 (concerning integrated pollution prevention and control), as amended by Directive (EC) 2003-35 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003. The request had been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Mr Edwards and Ms Pallikaropoulos and, on the other, the Environment Agency, the First Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs concerning a permit issued by the Environment Agency for the operation of a cement works. The request concerned the conformity with European Union law of the decision of the House of Lords ordering Ms Pallikaropoulos, whose appeal had been dismissed as unfounded, to pay the costs of the opposing parties.
Costs Order for costs. The Chancery Division considered the issue of costs following judgment in a substantive appeal.
Negligence Duty to take care. The claimant had suffered brain damage following a car accident in which he had been the passenger in the first defendant driver's car. Having originally blamed black ice for the accident, the first defendant modified his story and accepted responsibility. the judge dismissed the claim for damages, finding that the cause of the accident had been black ice. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against the decision to dismiss his claim, holding that the judge's careful analysis and conclusions could not properly be faulted.
Criminal law Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed a defendant's appeal against conviction for dishonestly making false representations contrary to s2 of the in respect of a motor insurance claim, in circumstances where the defendant criticised evidence that had been admitted, the form of the indictment and the prosecution's cross examination. The Court rejected the defendant's contention that the conviction was unsafe.
Disclosure and inspection of documents Disclosure against persons not parties to proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge had erred in finding that payment of disbursements by a solicitor instructed under a CFA, without more, incurred any potential liability to an adverse costs order.
Prison Removal of prisoner from one prison to another. The claimant, who was a serving recalled life sentence prisoner, brought a claim for misfeasance in public office against the defendant trust on the basis that it was vicariously liable for the actions of G, a Life Manager at an open prison. The trust applied to strike out the claim, or alternatively for summary judgment. The Administrative Court, in granting summary judgment, held that an examination of the evidence relied upon in support of the claim led to the conclusion that there was no credible motive that would have led G to have acted maliciously and there was no evidence that he had been motivated by malice. Further, there was no evidence that G had acted dishonestly or in bad faith.
Arbitration Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court held, in granting the claimant company's application for summary judgment, that the defendant company had no real prospect of successfully defending the enforcement of two adjudication decisions, where papers had been correctly submitted and where there was nothing to prevent a party from giving two notices of adjudication.
Costs Order for costs. In previous proceedings, the Patents County Court held that the defendant recording company had infringed the claimant's performer's rights by its release of a song which she had composed. The instant judgment concerning costs, it was held that the claimant was entitled to costs. However, the court held that it was not prepared to exercise its discretion to disapply the costs cap of 50,000.
Practice Civil litigation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge had erred by proceeding to determine the issues between the parties in the absence of an oral hearing in circumstances where the defence had sought to rely on the oral evidence of a witness whose evidence had been highly relevant.
Costs Security for costs. The Chancery Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal against an order for security for costs made under CPR 25.13, held that it was satisfied that the order for security made by the judge and any order for security for a substantial claim would stifle the counterclaim. Accordingly, the order was set aside.