Adjudication Injunction. A party to an adjudication was entitled to withdraw unilaterally a dispute referred to adjudication and commence a further adjudication in respect of the same, or substantially the same, dispute. In such circumstances, the court had power to grant an injunction to restrain pursuit of the further adjudication if the further adjudication was unreasonable and oppressive. So held the Technology and Construction Court in dismissing the claimant's application for an injunction to restrain the defendant from proceeding with a second adjudication, following the defendant's withdrawal from an earlier adjudication in respect of a construction dispute between the parties. The court held that, on the facts of the case, the second adjudication did not amount to unreasonable and oppressive behaviour, justifying the exercise of the court's discretion in granting injunctive relief.
Real property Beneficial ownership. The beneficial interest in a property purchased by the first and second defendants in joint names was held on a constructive trust, as between them, as tenants in common, in the proportions 80% to the first defendant and 20% to the second defendant, as a result of an agreement as to the ownership of the property after the purchase. However, the Chancery Division held that the first defendant had no further rights over the second defendant's share, whether by way of the equity of exoneration or equitable subrogation.
Insolvency Administration. In this rare and exceptional case, a proposal by joint administrators to appoint a director to a company already in administration (Lehman Brothers EuropeLtd), in order to distribute surplus funds to its sole member (Lehman Brothers Holdingsplc), as opposed to a creditor, was held to be legally permissible, as well as pragmatic and beneficial.
Company Director. The settlement agreement entered by the first applicant company and the respondent, governing certain claims or potential claims by each against the other, did not release the respondent from his obligations to the company in his capacity as a director. The Chancery Division held that the agreement released the respondent from claims connected with or arising out of his employment and not connected with or arising out of his holding an office.
Judetul Neamt v Ministerul Dezvoltarii si Administratiei Publice; Judetul Bacau v Ministerul Dezvoltarii si Administratiei Publice
European Union Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made determinations as preliminary rulings on the interpretation of and in two actions concerning the validity of administrative measures addressed to contracting authorities, which required them to repay part of grants that they had received in their capacity as contracting authorities which had organised public procurement procedures relating to operations eligible for grants.
Contract Formation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the judge's decision that there had been a binding contract between the parties, formed by the claimant (Reveille) accepting through conduct a written agreement, which had been signed by the defendant (Anotech), but not Reveille. It held that Reveille had waived the provision that there would be no binding contract in the absence of its signature on the agreement, and there had been no prejudice from that to Anotech. There had been acceptance by conduct on Reveille's part of the terms of the agreement, which had led to a binding contract.
Bankruptcy Property available for distribution. The Bankruptcy High Court allowed an application for relief by trustees in the bankruptcy of DD, who had made his living from residential and commercial property and was indebted to around the sum of 2.8m. The court held that money in certain accounts belonged to DD, that a flat which had been purchased out of money from one of the accounts was a bankruptcy asset, and that the transfer of shares in a company controlled by DD had been a sham.
Competition Merger. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) had found there to have been a relevant merger situation under s22(1) of the arising from the appellant's acquisition of cross-channel ferries from SeaFrance's liquidator and its employment of the majority of former SeaFrance employees, as a consequence of a statutory indemnity payment to the appellant for employing those redundant workers. The decision was upheld by the Competition Appeals Tribunal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal as the CMA's finding that upon such mass re-employment there had been in reality a transfer, or a transfer 'in effect' by SeaFrance, had been irrationally wrong and one that could not properly have been made.
Contract Rectification. The claimant and another businessman sold shares in a shipping company to the defendant company. A dispute arose as to the value of the shares. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, the agreement between the parties had not reflected their common intention, and an order for rectification would be made.
Copyright Infringement. The claimant brought proceedings alleging copying of its training manual used by those who taught techniques for physical restraint. It alleged that the first defendant had infringed certain copyright works by reason of the creation of its own manual. The alleged copyright works included photographs, literary and dramatic works. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held, inter alia, that, on the evidence, the first defendant had not at any stage been granted a licence to copy any of the photographs and, whenever it had done so, it had infringed the claimant's copyright. However, the claimant's case regarding literary and dramatic works failed.