Groupe Eurotunnel SA v Competition and Markets Authority

Competition Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Competition Appeal Tribunal dismissed the applications brought by Groupe Eurotunnel SA (Eurotunnel) and Societe Cooperative de Production Sea France SA under of the Enterprise Act 2002 for judicial review of a decision of the Competition and Markets Authority in relation to the completed acquisition by Eurotunnel of certain assets from the liquidator of SeaFrance SA.

*R (on the application of Unison (no. 2)) v Lord Chancellor (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening)

Employment tribunal Procedure. The claimant trade union sought judicial review of the fee scheme for employment applications and appeals introduced by the Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal Feels Order 2013, . The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had not shown that the principle of effectiveness had been infringed or that there had been indirect discrimination, in particular, against women.


Arbitration Injunction. The claimant applied, under of the Arbitration Act 1996, for an injunction to restrain the defendant from terminating a licence agreement pending the resolution of arbitration. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that there was a serious issue to be tried as to whether or not the proposed termination was wrongful and ineffective. However, the claimant was unable to show that damages were an inadequate remedy, as it was not unjust to the claimant to exclude the effect of a clause potentially limiting damages when considering whether or not it should be left to its remedy in damages.

East England Schools CIC (t/a 4myschools) v Palmer and another

Restraint of trade by agreement Employer and employee. The first defendant left the claimant recruitment company to work for the second defendant recruitment company. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claimant's claim for damages arising from the breach of restrictive covenants contained in the first defendant's contract. The restrictions had, subject to severing one phrase from two of the restrictions, been legally enforceable, the first defendant had been in breach and the second defendant had procured those breaches.

Groupe Eurotunnel S.A. v Competition Commission

Competition Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled on an appeal by Eurotunnel and another ferry operator against a decision by the Competition Commission in which the Commission had decided that by buying certain assets of SeaFrance SA, which had been in liquidation, a relevant merger situation had been created which had resulted or might result in a substantial lessening of competition in the market for the supply of transport services to freight customers on the short sea.

Greenwich Millennium village Ltd and another v Essex Services Group plc and another

Contract Construction. The claimant brought subrogated claims against the parties who originally designed certain flats that were destroyed as a result of a water leak. No single organisation had overall control of the design, installation, supervision, inspection, testing and acceptance of the boosted mains cold water system (BMCWS). The various different contracts and subcontracts resulted in pipework systems which, on completion, varied markedly from core to core, even though they should have been the same in each. The litigation involved five parties, with different defences and claims up and down the line, depending precisely on where the parties sat in the contractual chain. The Technology and Construction Court determined the claim on the facts.

*Serious Organised Crime Agency v Azam and others

Proceeds of crime Civil recovery of proceeds of unlawful conduct. A property freezing order ordered the balance of the first defendant's funds in a Luxembourg bank to be brought within the jurisdiction. The defendants sought an order that the money should be returned, following the subsequent decision in Perry v Serious Organised Crime Agency (). The claimant Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) sought to rely on similar fact evidence of the first defendant's conviction for money laundering in the United Arab Emirates. The Queen's Bench Division held that the money had been lawfully brought within the jurisdiction and there were no grounds for returning it to Luxembourg. It further held that it would be open to SOCA to use the disclosure order to obtain information which related to the first defendant's criminal conduct.

*Rocknroll v News Group Newspapers Ltd

Copyright Newspaper. The claimant, who was married to the actress Kate Winslett, sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant newspaper from publishing photographs of him partially dressed at a party. The photographs had been taken by a guest at the party and had been published on Facebook. The claimant had subsequently been assigned the copyright in the photographs. The Chancery Division, in granting the application, held that, on the facts, the claimant's right to privacy under art8 of the European Convention of Human Rights had plainly been engaged by the defendant's threat both to publish the photographs and to publish a description of their content. The claimant was more likely than not to succeed at trial in vindicating his art8 rights as against the defendant's right to freedom of speech under art10 of the Convention.

Francis v Solomon Taylor & Shaw (a firm)

Guarantee Bankruptcy. The Chancery Division considered the claimant's appeal against the court of first instance's refusal to set aside a statutory demand made by the defendant solicitors' firm. Although the standard of proof used by the judge at first instance had been unclear, none of the claimant's arguments demonstrated a triable issue, and therefore the appeal would be dismissed.

Nelson and others v Deutsche Lufthansa AG; R (on the application of) TUI Travel plc and others v Civil Aviation Authority

European Union Transport. The Court of Justice of the European Union made preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation and validity of arts 5 to 7 of Regulation (EC) 261-2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights) (the Regulation), and repealing Regulation (EEC) 295-91. The rulings were made in relation to two references (Cases and ), the latter case being referred by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, concerning proceedings between, on the one hand, TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc, easyJet Airline Company Ltd and the International Air Transport Association and, on the other, the Civil Aviation Authority, concerning that latter's refusal to guarantee to them that it would not interpret the Regulation as imposing an obligation on airlines to compensate passengers in the event of delay to their flights.