Latest Cases

European Union – Community institutions. The applicant companies had commenced proceedings seeking annulment of a decision of the European Medicines Agency (ASK-40399 of 15 May 2018), granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, access to a document containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product 'Ocaliva'. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the applicants' action, deciding that the applicants had failed to show that the report at issue fell within the exceptions regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents set out in the first and second indents of art 4(2) of that regulation, namely the 'commercial interests' provisions and protection of court proceedings.

Employment – Discrimination. The pay progression policy (which applied with effect from 1 April 2011), implemented by the Ministry of Justice (the MOJ) was not discriminatory in relation to the appellant employee's age, because the MOJ had shown that it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim within s 19(2)(d) of the Equality Act 2010. Consequently, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employee's appeal against the employment tribunal's decision.

European Union – Civil and commercial matters. Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 should be interpreted as meaning that, where a court was unable to obtain the defendant's address, it did not allow a judicial decision relating to a debt, made following a hearing attended by neither the defendant nor the guardian ad litem appointed for the purpose of the proceedings, to be certified as a European Enforcement Order. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in proceedings between the parties concerning a rental debt.

Company – Shares. The claimants' claim and the defendant company's counterclaim both failed, in a dispute concerning the selling of the entire shareholding in the defendant to another company. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, an agreement had been made in February 2013, by which the defendant had agreed to pay the claimants £3,135,816. Further, the Companies Act 2006 had not been contravened by an agreement of 2011 that the defendant would be responsible for all tax liabilities and associated costs that the claimants might incur as a consequence of the sale and that it would have no right of recourse.

Summary judgment – Personal injury. G4S Care and Justice Services Ltd (G4S) appealed against a judge's decision, dismissing its application for summary judgment and/or strike out of the claimant mother's claim (as the administrator of her deceased son's estate) for damages, under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in respect of the son's death of a drug overdose while in a prison run by G4S. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had not applied the Osman test in a way which had paid proper regard to its stringent nature and that, applying settled law to the facts, there was no realistic prospect of the claimant showing that there had been a real and immediate risk to her son's life, of which G4S should have been aware, so as to trigger its operational 'Osman' duty to protect life. Accordingly, the court held that the judge had erred in dismissing G4S's application for summary judgment, and it granted summary judgment in its favour on the claim.

Mental health – Patient. The evidence demonstrated that the respondent (JP), a young lady with learning disabilities, lacked capacity to make decisions as to her antenatal care and the delivery of her baby. Further, the overall balance in the evaluation of JP's best interests was in favour of the proposed treatment plan, provided it was supplemented to address the psychological or psychiatric consequences of giving birth in that way. Accordingly, the Court of Protection declared that it was in JP's best interests to undergo a planned caesarean section and the proposed transfer and postnatal care plan.

Coroner – Inquest. The applicant local authority had not taken all practicable steps to notify the media of its application for reporting restrictions, pursuant to s 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, in a forthcoming inquest into the suicide of a 17-year-old girl in custody, and had taken no steps to notify others, including her parents, and there were no compelling reasons why proper notice could not have been given. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division held that the failings went to jurisdiction and the threshold criteria, pursuant to s 12(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998, were not met.

Employment – Victimisation. The appellant had been dismissed from his office as a lay magistrate following media interviews in which he had stated that he had been reprimanded for his expression of his Christian belief that same-sex couples should not adopt. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing his appeal, held that the employment tribunal had not erred in finding that there had been nothing that had amounted to a protected act complained of by the appellant and that the tribunal had been right to dismiss the appellant's victimisation claim on the grounds that his actions had amounted to inappropriate conduct in publicly displaying a preconceived bias towards same-sex adopters rather than his Christian beliefs.

Employment – Discrimination. The appellant's position as a non-executive chair of the respondent NHS Trust was terminated after he had made comments in the media expressing his Christian belief that same-sex couples should not adopt. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing his appeal, held that the employment tribunal had been correct to ask why he had been dismissed and to find that the reason had not been because of his beliefs, but because be had been instructed by the trust not to engage in media interviews without informing it and he had not complied with that instruction.

Landlord and tenant – Notice to quit. The claimant Secretary of State for Defence's appeal and the defendant landowners' cross-appeal failed, in a dispute concerning the validity of a notice to quit and the possibility of an equitable set-off. The Chancery Division held that the first defendant could rely upon equitable set-off of unliquidated claims for damages in order to invalidate the notice to pay, because it overstated the rent due, and so to invalidate the notice to quit. Further, the Recorder had been right to hold that the tenant could rely upon equitable set-off for unliquidated damages to invalidate the notice to pay (and therefore the notice to quit), subject to certain limiting criteria.