Public procurement Public contracts. The defendant county council (LCC) applied unsuccessfully to have an automatic suspension lifted, which had prevented it from entering into a contract with the winner of a tendering process for services when the outcome of the process had been challenged by the claimant NHS trusts (the trusts). The Technology and Construction Court, in dismissing the application, held that, although damages would be an adequate remedy for LCC, the impact on the trusts would go far wider than simply those aspects to which a money value could be attributed. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for the trusts.
Contract Terms. The claims for damages for breach of warranty or an indemnity in relation to tax, would be struck out as the requirements of para 4 of sch 4 to the share purchase agreement had not been satisfied. The claim had not identified the particular warranties and provisions of the Tax Covenant on which the claims had been based. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the 'setting out' of the 'grounds' of a claim that para 4 called for meant that the legal basis of the claim had to be identified.
Trade mark Infringement. The defendant company unsuccessfully applied to challenge the jurisdiction of the court, in a case involving alleged trade mark infringement. The Chancery Division held that the evidence relied upon by the claimant company established a good arguable case that defendant had threatened to use the trade marks in the UK and it was appropriate that the claim should be heard in the English court.
Company Articles of association. There was no justification for interference with the conclusions of the courts below, upholding the shareholders' resolution amending the first appellant company's memorandum and articles. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appeal and cross-appeal, further held that the courts below had correctly held that alleged misrepresentations by the respondent had been immaterial.
Limitation of action Public authority. The six-month limitation period in s 2 of the Public Authorities Protection Act had no application where the obligation sued upon arose simply out of a relationship with the claimant which would be the same for any non-public person or body, and where there was no question of a public law challenge. Accordingly, the Privy Council, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held that the limitation did not apply to her claim against the government of the British Virgin Islands for personal injuries sustained during her employment as a nurse.
Company Shares. An individual, N, had been obliged to pay in cash for shares in a company, Z. Further, the Chancery Division held that Z was entitled to forfeit N's shares. Z was not estopped from asserting that N's shares were unpaid, and Z was not under an obligation to make restitution to N.
Loan Recovery. The concurrent findings of fact by the judge and the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago were sufficient to dispose of the appellants' appeal against the finding of liability to repay a commercial in so far as it depended on the claim under the Misrepresentation Act. The Privy Council further dismissed their appeal against enforcement orders, directing sale of one of their properties.
Sentence Murder. For an offence of murder, the first offender's sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 16years, and the second offender's sentence of custody for life, with a minimum term of 12years, were held to have been unduly lenient under a reference by the Attorney General, pursuant to s36 of the Criminal Justice Act1988. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, quashed the minimum terms of the sentences and substituted minimum terms of 20years and 15years respectively, less time spent on remand.
Company Shares. In a case concerning the ownership of shares in a company, the Board advised Her Majesty that: the appellant's appeal should be allowed to the extent of setting aside the order that the shares were beneficially owned by the respondent, but that, rather than restoring the order of the judge, a new trial should take place before a different judge.
Investigatory powers Regulation of investigatory powers. The first and second claimants were awarded 3,000 as just satisfaction for the respondent Chief Constable's breach of their rights by communications data authorisations, although the vindication of the rights of the other claimants by a previous judgment was such that no award of money was necessary in their cases. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal found no reason to depart from the normal practice that no award of costs would be made and gave directions for the treatment of the data pending its eventual destruction.