Contract Breach of contract. The claimant dentist, who had entered into a contract with the defendants to purchase a dental practice, was entitled to damages of 140,000 for misrepresentation in relation to a statement made in reply to pre-contract enquiries, concerning the practice's turnover, which the defendants had known to be false. So held the Chancery Division, which further ruled that the claimant was also entitled to damages for consequential loss, breach of an express warranty and breach of contract in relation to the removal of stocks.
Company Member. The directors of the seventh respondent company had breached their duty under the by having failed to give the claimant shareholder notice of a proposed special resolution at the same time as the other shareholders. However, the Companies Court found that no prejudice had been caused to the claimant by it because the notice which the directors had failed to give would not have permitted the claimant to block the special resolution.
Family Divorce. The husband's application for an injunction to debar the wife's solicitors from representing her in divorce proceedings would be dismissed. The Family Division held that although a representative of the husband had had a meeting prior to the instigation of the present proceedings, nothing of substance and no confidential information had been disclosed to the wife's solicitors such that would preclude the wife's solicitors from representing the wife. On balance, the evidence suggested that the meeting in question had been short and uninformative rather than the detailed, fact heavy and advice heavy meeting that the husband had sought to portray.
Copyright Infringement. The defendant companies' application to strike out the claimant company's claim succeeded. The Chancery Division held that the claimant's claim, which related to alleged copying of an idea for a TV gameshow, was not sustainable on the basis of copyright infringement, breach of confidence or passing off.
Employment Unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) had failed to identify the reasons for its finding that the employee had affirmed his contract of employment with Morrison Supermarkets plc in circumstances where he had been on sick leave and had resigned six weeks after the date of a repudiatory breach. The Employment Appeal Tribunal so ruled in allowing the employee's appeal. The case was remitted to the tribunal.
Value added tax Supply of goods. The words 'contract for hire which provides that in the normal course of events ownership is to pass at the latest upon payment of the final instalment', used in of Council Directive (EC) 2006-112 should be interpreted as applying to a leasing contract with an option to purchase if it could be inferred from the financial terms of the contract that exercising the option appeared to be the only economically rational choice that the lessee would be able to make at the appropriate time if the contract was performed for its full term, which it was for the national court to ascertain. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings between Mercedes-Benz Financial Services UK Ltd and the United Kingdom Revenue and Customs Commissioners.
Contract Consumer contract. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts3(1) and 4(2) of Council Directive (EEC)93-13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, in particular, for the repayment of loans in the same foreign currency as that in which they were disbursed.
Company Director. The first claimant company brought claims against the defendants, following a breakdown in relations between the parties, which were all linked to a group of companies in the same family business. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, the features of an agency had been present in the relationship between the first claimant and the first defendant companies. The first defendant was broadly to account to the first claimant, and that the second and third defendants had not acted in breach of duty.
Commercial contract Construction. The claimant NHS Trust brought a claim against the defendant for damages for wasted expenditure due to the latter's alleged repudiatory breach of a contract for the provision of health record scanning, electronic document management and associated services. The Technology and Construction Court ruled, on preliminary issues, that a clause in the contract did not exclude, and was no bar to, the claimant's claims for wasted expenditure on a reliance loss basis. It further held that the limitation of liability provision in the contract was valid and enforceable.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The appellant's application to quash the decision of the committee of the London Stock Exchange PLC to hear his case in private would be refused. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) based its decision on an interpretation of r C22.1 of the disciplinary procedures and appeals handbook and considerations of art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.