European Union Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that of Council Regulation (EC) No 44-2001 should be interpreted to the effect that its scope included an action brought by a third party, in accordance with national law, against the defendant in the original proceedings, and closely linked to those original proceedings, seeking reimbursement of compensation paid by that third party to the applicant in those original proceedings, provided that the action had not been instituted solely with the object of removing that defendant from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in the case.
Nuisance Occupier. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the second defendant's appeal against the judge's decision that she was liable in nuisance to the claimant owners of the next door property, even though she did not occupy the property from which the nuisance emanated. W had been in possession and control of the property throughout her daughter's residence there and she had been able to abate the nuisance, but had chosen to do nothing.
Company Winding up. The Chancery Division held that the first applicant company's application for orders requiring it to be reimbursed for fees and other costs incurred in a liquidation would be allowed, where it had advanced money under a funding agreement on the understanding that it would recover the amounts so advanced out of the assets of BJUK, the company in liquidation, either upon the dismissal of the petition or on the winding up of BJUK. Further, the remedy of subrogation would be made available to TOC, since in the circumstances it was the remaining and appropriate way of ensuring that BJUK was not unjustly enriched.
Bankruptcy Appeal. The Chancery Division, in dismissing an appeal against a bankruptcy order, held that there had been a clear and careful judgment by the district judge, who had reached a decision that had been well open to her on the evidence.
Practice Summary judgment. The Chancery Division granted the defendant firm of solicitors summary judgment in respect of claims for negligence, which had been brought by claimants who had acquired buy-to-let properties, where the manner in which they had paid court fees had been an abuse of process and where they had not done all that they reasonably could do to bring the matter before the court for its process to follow.
Telecommunications Mobile telephone networks. The Chancery Division allowed O2's application to discharge an interim injunction restraining it from suspending or discontinuing service to any or all of the SIM cards identified in its letter to the claimant, which re-sold air time on O2's network to its customers by providing them with SIM cards to use in 'GSM Gateways'. It also allowed O2's application for summary dismissal of the claim including an allegation of abuse of dominant position. On the evidence presently before the court, the claimant had not come close to establishing an arguable case of dominance in the relevant market. Accordingly, the injunction could not be sustained.
Costs Order for costs. The Chancery Division, allowed the third to sixth defendants' application under CPR40.12 seeking clarification or amendment of an order for costs made following the trial of a probate action concerning a will. The amount of the claimant's personal liability for the costs of the third to sixth defendants under the order was not limited by reference to the amount of her pecuniary legacy. The court exercised its inherent power under CPR 40BPD 4.5 that the order be amended to add words to the order to ensure any ambiguity in the order was removed.
Negligence Information or advice. The claimant bank brought a claim in negligence against the defendant concerning non-statutory audit reports, which the defendant had provided to the Von Essen Hotels Limited Group and which the bank had relied on. The bank alleged that the defendant had owed it a duty of care in tort in relation to the contents of the reports and that it had been negligent. The Commercial Court, in allowing the defendant's application for summary judgment, held that a disclaimer in the reports took effect to negate any duty of care which could otherwise be owed by the defendant to Barclays and it was reasonable, in accordance with the Act.
Trust and trustee Corporate trustee. The dispute arose out of contractual arrangements made in connection with a project for the construction of a national stadium and sporting complex in Grenada and, in particular, a facility agreement made with between the appellant, NS, and CLICO Investment Bank Ltd (CIB). The proceedings concerned the ownership of funds payable under that agreement which had been frozen pursuant to an ex parte injunction. The Privy Council set aside an order dismissing NS's notice of appeal against a declaration that the frozen fund was held on trust for NH.
Action Dismissal. The claimant had brought a claim against the defendants, which had been dismissed. He brought another claim, essentially based on similar allegations. The defendants applied to strike out the new claim and for a civil restraint order. The Chancery Division, in allowing the defendants' application, held that the claim would be struck out as an abuse of process. Further, it was appropriate for an extended civil restraint order to be made.