Results: 2302

• Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways plc (No 1) (Air Canada, third parties) (Korean Airlines Co Ltd, fourth parties) (Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways plc (No 2) (Air Canada, third parties) (Polar Air Cargo llc, fourth parties))

  28 Oct 2014 [2014] EWHC 3513 (Ch); [2014] CN 1855, Ch D (Peter Smith J)

  14 Oct 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 1024; [2016] Bus LR 145; [2015] WLR (D) 411, CA

  23 May 2016 (appn dis) [2016] Bus LR 713, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 12.
  PRACTICE — Judgment — Redaction

  COMPETITION — Commission decision — Presumption of innocence

  TORT — Cause of action — Intention to injure
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — Judgment — Redaction — European Commission issuing Decision — Defendant making redactions to Decision — Claimants seeking review of lawfulness of redactions — Whether possible for English judge to order disclosure of European Decision in un-redacted form — Whether protections necessary in making such an order — Whether decision of English court on such an application potentially conflicting with future EC decisions

  COMPETITION — Commission decision — Presumption of innocence — Duty of sincere co-operation — Commission issuing confidential Decision containing infringement findings or allusions to infringements not in operative part — Claimants bringing damages proceedings in national court seeking disclosure of unredacted confidential version of Decision — Commission subsequently publishing provisional non-confidential version with protected material redacted — Judge directing disclosure of unredacted confidential version to confidentiality ring — Application of EU principle of presumption of innocence to national proceedings — Whether national court obliged to afford same protection as afforded at Community level — EU Treaty, art 4(3)EU — FEU Treaty, art 101FEU — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, art 48

  TORT — Cause of action — Intention to injure — Commission finding defendant infringing competition law — Claimants issuing proceedings claiming unlawful interference with business and unlawful means conspiracy arising out of alleged unlawful cartel — Defendant applying to strike out economic torts — Whether claimants showing necessary intent to injure particular claimants

  8 Case(s) considered

  3 EU Enactments considered

• Deutsche Bank AG v Unitech Global Ltd (No 3) (Deutsche Bank AG v Unitech Ltd)

  03 Oct 2014 [2014] EWHC 3117 (Comm); [2014] CN 1665, QBD (Teare J)

  03 Mar 2016 [2016] EWCA Civ 119; [2016] 1 WLR 3598; [2017] 1 All ER 570; [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 689; [2016] WLR (D) 119, CA

  Subsequent citations: 5.
  PRACTICE — Payment into court — Interim payment

  PRACTICE — Case management — Power to impose conditions

  PRACTICE — Interim payment — Jurisdiction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — Payment into court — Interim payment — Claimant banks claiming sum due under loan agreements — Defendant borrowers amending pleadings to include rescission — Whether defendants having real prospect of defending claim — Whether appropriate to order payment into court or interim payment to claimants — CPR Pts 3, 24, 25

  PRACTICE — Case management — Power to impose conditions — Judge setting aside order for summary judgment — Whether power to make setting aside conditional on payment into court — Whether to be exercised — CPR r 3.1(3), Pt 24

  PRACTICE — Interim payment — Jurisdiction — Defendant resisting claim to enforce contract on grounds of misrepresentation — Defendant liable to make restitution of certain sums to claimant if defence successful — Whether power to order interim payment of such sums — Senior Courts Act 1981, s 32(5) — CPR r 25.1(1)(k)

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (Frost v MGN Ltd (No 2))

  19 Dec 2013 [2013] EWHC 4075 (QB); [2013] CN 1987, QBD (Nicola Davies J)

  04 Dec 2014 [2014] EWCA Civ 1574; [2014] CN 2134, CA

  11 Apr 2017 [2017] UKSC 33; [2017] 1 WLR 1415; [2017] 4 All ER 733; [2017] WLR (D) 273; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 13.
  DEFAMATION — Damages for libel — Assessment

  COSTS — Damages — Discretion

  COSTS — Discretion of court — Defamation action

  COSTS — Order for costs — Success fees and after the event insurance premiums
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  DEFAMATION — Damages for libel — Assessment — Defendant publishing article alleging claimant guilty of corruption — Investigation clearing claimant of alleged wrongdoing — Defendant pursuing defence of justification until late stage — Assessment of damages due to claimant

  COSTS — Damages — Discretion — Claimant bringing libel proceedings against defendant — Claimant awarded damages and entire costs of action — Whether judge exceeding wide ambit of discretion

  COSTS — Discretion of court — Defamation action — Judge awarding total costs of action to claimant despite newspaper publisher successfully defending majority of claim — Judge starting from position that claimant entitled to costs as winner unless reason to depart from such position — Judge taking account of defendant’s conduct and attitude towards settlement before trial — Whether judge’s approach within ambit of court’s discretion in costs determination — Whether requirement on judge to take account in defamation action of chilling effect of adverse costs order on public interest journalism — CPR r 44.2(2)

  COSTS — Order for costs — Success fees and after the event insurance premiums — Costs regime in place allowing for recovery of success fees and after the event insurance premiums in defamation and privacy actions — Award of damages for libel or breach of privacy against defendant newspaper publishers in three actions — Costs order against defendants in each action including claimants’ additional liabilities by way of success fee and after the event insurance premium — Whether inclusion of additional liabilities in breach of defendants’ Convention rights to freedom of expression — Whether additional liabilities recoverable — Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c 41), s 58A(6) (inserted by Access to Justice Act 1999 (c 22), s 27) — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), s 8(1), Sch 1, Pt I, art 10, Pt II, art 1 — Access to Justice Act 1999 (c 22), s 29

  5 Case(s) considered

  3 Statutes considered
• In re M (Brussels II Revised: Article 15) (In re D (A Child), Nottingham City Council v LM)

  18 Dec 2013 [2013] EWHC 4078 (Fam); [2014] 2 FLR 496; [2013] CN 2004, Fam D (Mostyn J)

  21 Feb 2014 [2014] EWCA Civ 152; [2014] 2 FLR 1372; [2014] WLR (D) 92, CA

  18 Sep 2014 [2014] EWHC 3388 (Fam); [2014] CN 1751, Fam D (Mostyn J)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 neutral; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 49.
  CHILDREN — Care proceedings — Mother’s application for transfer to courts of Czech Republic

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction under Council Regulation — Care proceedings

  CHILDREN — Care proceedings — Local authority seeking care and placement orders
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CHILDREN — Care proceedings — Mother’s application for transfer to courts of Czech Republic — Whether application to be granted

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction under Council Regulation — Care proceedings — Judge requesting Czech court to assume jurisdiction in relation to care proceedings concerning child — Whether judge erring — Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, arts 8, 15

  CHILDREN — Care proceedings — Local authority seeking care and placement orders — Whether orders to be made

• Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Chester Overseas Ltd

  01 Aug 2014 [2014] EWHC 2692 (Ch); [2014] Bus LR 1110; [2014] WLR (D) 365, Ch D (Stephen Jourdan QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge)

  10 Nov 2014 [2014] EWHC 3418 (Ch); [2014] CN 1970, Ch D (Stephen Jourdan QCsitting as a deputy High Court judge)

  Subsequent citations: 3.
  COSTS — Order for costs — Indemnity basis

  COMPANY — Director — Breach of duty
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  COSTS — Order for costs — Indemnity basis — Whether claim having requisite level of unreasonableness — Whether order for indemnity costs to be made

  COMPANY — Director — Breach of duty — First defendant company having minority shareholding in claimant company — Second and third defendants appointed by first defendant to claimants’ board of directors — First defendant marketing its minority holding in claimant to third parties — Whether in course of marketing shares first defendant disclosing claimant’s confidential information to third parties — Whether breaching obligations to claimant under shareholder agreement — Test for determining whether director in breach of general statutory duties — Whether by causing first defendant to breach agreement second and third defendants breaching statutory and equitable duties owed to claimant — Whether claimant estopped from asserting that defendants in breach of duties — Companies Act 2006, ss 172, 174, 175

  2 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered
• Mohammed (Serdar) v Ministry of Defence (Qasim v Secretary of State for Defence, Rahmatullah v Ministry of Defence, Iraqi Civilians v Ministry of Defence)

  02 May 2014 [2014] EWHC 1369 (QB); [2014] CN 1019, QBD (Leggatt J)

  30 Jul 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 843; [2017] AC 649; [2016] 2 WLR 247; [2015] WLR (D) 354, CA (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd CJ, Lloyd-Jones, Beatson LJJ)

  17 Jan 2017 [2017] UKSC 1; [2017] AC 649; [2017] 2 WLR 287; [2017] 3 All ER 179; [2017] WLR (D) 49; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 neutral; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 28.
  FALSE IMPRISONMENT — Suspected terrorist — Detention in Afghanistan

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Sovereign immunity — Act of state

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Liberty — Interference with
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  FALSE IMPRISONMENT — Suspected terrorist — Detention in Afghanistan — Claimant suspected of being Taliban commander captured by UK armed forces in Afghanistan and detained at British military base — Claimant detained for 110 days before transferred to Afghan authorities — Claimant bringing claim for unlawful detention, false imprisonment and breach of right to liberty — Whether claimant’s detention lawful — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Sovereign immunity — Act of state — Foreign claimants arrested and detained by HM Armed Forces acting abroad — Claimants’ claims in tort for damages for unlawful detention — Whether claims non-justiciable — Whether act of state defence available to bar claims — Crown Proceedings Act 1947, s 2(1)

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Liberty — Interference with — Afghan claimants arrested and detained for more than 96 hours by HM Armed Forces acting in Afghanistan — Whether such detention lawful under Afghan law, United Nations Security Council resolution or international humanitarian law — Whether international humanitarian law providing any authority to detain in internationalised non-international armed conflict — Whether procedural requirements of Convention right to liberty modified during such conflict — Whether claimants’ detention breaching rights to liberty — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Sovereign immunity — Act of state — Foreign claimants arrested and detained by British armed forces acting abroad — Claimants bringing claims in tort for damages for unlawful detention — Whether claims justiciable — Whether barred by doctrine of Crown act of state — Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (10 & 11 Geo 6, c 44), s 2(1) — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 6

  13 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered
• Shergill v Khaira

  17 Jul 2012 [2012] EWCA Civ 983; [2012] PTSR 1697; [2012] WLR (D) 214, CA

  04 Feb 2013 (appn all) [2013] PTSR 377, SC(E)

  20 Dec 2013 (Compromise of action) [2013] EWHC 4162 (Ch); [2014] CN 114, Ch D (Judge Purle QC)

  11 Jun 2014 [2014] UKSC 33; [2015] AC 359; [2014] 3 WLR 1; [2014] PTSR 907; [2014] 3 All ER 243; [2014] WLR (D) 263; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 3 positive; 4 neutral; most recently considered: 2021. Subsequent citations: 39.
  CHARITY — Trustees — Power to appoint

  CHARITY — Charity proceedings — Compromise of action
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CHARITY — Trustees — Power to appoint — Temples established under charitable trust to promote beliefs of Sikh religious sect — Dispute as to whether particular individual was spiritual successor having power under trust deed to appoint trustees — Claim for declaration that claimant trustees lawfully appointed by spiritual successor — Whether issue involving determination of religious belief — Whether issue justiciable

  CHARITY — Charity proceedings — Compromise of action — Defendants alleging binding agreement compromising appeal — Whether being agreement reached

  7 Case(s) considered
• NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV v Cargill International SA (The Global Santosh)

  01 Feb 2013 [2013] EWHC 30 (Comm); [2013] CN 169; [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 455, QBD (Field J)

  08 Feb 2014 [2014] EWCA Civ 403; [2014] CN 674; [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 103, CA

  22 Dec 2014 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  11 May 2016 [2016] UKSC 20; [2016] 1 WLR 1853; [2016] 4 All ER 298; [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 587; [2016] 1 Lloyd's Rep 629; [2016] WLR (D) 255; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 6.
  SHIPPING — Charterparty — Construction

  SHIPPING — Charterparty — Time charter
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  SHIPPING — Charterparty — Construction — Vessel detained — Defendant charterers withholding payment of hire during period of detention — Claimant seeking to rely on proviso in off-hire clause — Arbitral tribunal finding in favour of defendant — Claimant appealing — Whether tribunal erring in construction of clause

  SHIPPING — Charterparty — Construction — Vessel detained — Allocation of risk of delay as between owners and time charterers

  SHIPPING — Charterparty — Time charter — Construction — Off-hire provision — Charterparty allowing sub-charters but making charterers ultimately liable for unloading of vessel at port of discharge — Charterparty stipulating that vessel off-hire if arrested save where arrest occasioned by act, omission or default of charterer or “agent” of charterer — Vessel arrested outside port of discharge as result of dispute between parties to sub-charter — Start of unloading delayed until dispute resolved — Shipowner claiming vessel not off-hire during period of delay because sub-charter parties deemed to be charterers’ agents — Whether sub-charter parties acting as charterers’ “agents” only during actual unloading — Whether acts of sub-charter parties leading to arrest outside scope of agency — Whether charterers able to rely on off-hire provision — Asbatime form, cl 8

  6 Case(s) considered

  1 Standard Form considered

• Greenway v Johnson Matthey plc (Dryden v Johnson Matthey plc)

  26 Nov 2014 [2014] EWHC 3957 (QB); [2015] PIQR P10; [2014] CN 2094, QBD (Jay J)

  28 Apr 2016 [2016] EWCA Civ 408; [2016] 1 WLR 4487; [2017] ICR 43; [2016] WLR (D) 224, CA

  06 Dec 2016 (appn all) [2017] 1 WLR 566; [2017] ICR 276, SC(E)

  21 Mar 2018 [2018] UKSC 18; [2019] AC 403; [2018] 2 WLR 1109; [2018] ICR 715; [2018] 3 All ER 755; [2018] WLR (D) 182; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 16.
  NEGLIGENCE — Damage — Tort

  NEGLIGENCE — Duty of care — Employee
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  NEGLIGENCE — Damage — Tort — Contract — Claimants employed by defendant at chemical plant — Claimants developing sensitivity to platinum salts — Claimants bringing claims in tort and contract — Whether claimants suffering actionable injury

  NEGLIGENCE — Duty of care — Employee — Claimants developing sensitivity to platinum salts following employer’s breach of statutory duty — Sensitivity not physically harmful — Collective agreement providing for contractual periodic testing of employees at risk of sensitisation to avoid development of platinum allergy — Further provision for redeployment of sensitised employees or termination of employment on special terms — Claimants claiming in tort and contract for financial losses on redeployment or termination — Whether claimants suffering actionable injury — Whether employer owing duty of care to protect from financial loss — Whether implied term in contract to protect from financial loss

  NEGLIGENCE — Duty of care — Employee — Claimants developing sensitivity to platinum salts following employer’s breach of statutory duty — Sensitivity not itself physically harmful but leading to allergic reaction on further exposure to platinum salts — Employment contracts providing for periodic testing of employees at risk of sensitisation to avoid development of platinum allergy — Further provision for redeployment of sensitised employees or termination of employment on special terms — Claimants claiming in tort for financial losses on redeployment or termination — Whether claimants suffering actionable personal injury

  6 Case(s) considered

• MS (Uganda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

  16 Jan 2014 [2014] EWCA Civ 50; [2014] 1 WLR 2766; [2014] CN 16, CA

  22 Jun 2016 [2016] UKSC 33; [2016] 1 WLR 2615; [2017] 3 All ER 709; [2016] WLR (D) 320; Case details, SC(E)

  IMMIGRATION — Asylum — Appeal
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  IMMIGRATION — Asylum — Appeal — Student with leave to remain subsequently making asylum claim — Asylum refused — Whether claimant entitled to appeal against refusal of asylum where leave to remain pre-dating refusal — Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s 83(1)(b)

  IMMIGRATION — Asylum — Appeal — Student with leave to remain subsequently making asylum claim— Asylum refused— Claimant having at date of refusal less than 12 months remaining of previously granted leave to remain— Whether entitled to appeal against refusal— Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c 41), s 83(1)(b)

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered