‘It is again time for a round-up of recent competition law developments which have caught our attention.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 14th January 2014
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
Corman-Collins SA v La Maison du Whisky SA (Case C-9/12); [2013] WLR (D) 513
‘The rule of jurisdiction laid down in the second indent of article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 for disputes relating to contracts for the supply of services was applicable in the case of a legal action by which a claimant established in one member state claimed, against a defendant established in another member state, rights arising from an exclusive distribution agreement, which required the contract binding the parties to contain specific terms concerning the distribution by the distributor of goods sold by the grantor. It was for the national court to ascertain whether that was the case in the before it.’
WLR Daily, 19th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The English Patents Court had no jurisdiction to review or investigate the decision of European Patent Office (EPO) to register a patent on an application under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, since the United Kingdom’s sovereign power in relation to that issue had been surrendered to the EPO under the European Patent Convention (EPC).’
WLR Daily, 20th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘On 20 December 2013 judgment was handed down in the first judicial review of a decision of the Legal Ombudsman (“LeO”) to reach a substantive hearing. The judgment will be of interest to lawyers and complainants wishing to challenge unappealable decisions of LeO. It is particularly (though not only) relevant to LeO decisions which direct a reduction in fees. This is an area which, in view of the absence of a limit on the amount by which LeO can reduce fees, has caused particular controversy.’
4 New Square, 3rd January 2014
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘Does the Legal Ombudsman have teeth? That was, in effect, the question before the High Court in Layard Horsfall, a judicial review brought by a former solicitor against a decision by the Ombudsman to reduce his fees following a complaint by one of his clients. The Court’s answer was a very clear yes. Where the Ombudsman has made her decision properly, taking relevant factors into account, it is likely to withstand judicial review challenge.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd January 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Lord Mance warns the EU must not “steamroll” national courts to impose human rights rules on countries including the UK’
Daily Telegraph, 17th December 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
JO v GO and others [2013] EWHC 3932 (COP); [2013] WLR (D) 495
‘The English Court of Protection had no jurisdiction under section 7(1)(a) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to exercise its functions under the Act in relation to an incapacitated adult no longer habitually resident in England and Wales. In the case of an adult lacking capacity to decide where to live, habitual residence could in principle be lost and another habitual residence acquired without the need for any court order or other formal process. Provided that the removal had not been wrongful the doctrine of necessity applied; what was required was a decision taken by a relative or carer which was reasonable, arrived at in good faith and taken in the best interests of the assisted person. There was nothing in the 2005 Act to displace that approach.’
WLR Daily, 13th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The new emphasis on courts considering a “wide range of interests” beyond just those of the parties before them when deciding applications for relief from sanctions is not “an enhanced tactical weapon” for non-defaulting parties, the High Court warned last week.’
Litigation Futures, 16th December 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Google has been called “arrogant and immoral” for arguing that a privacy claim brought by internet users in the UK should not be heard by the British legal system.’
The Guardian, 15th December 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘When do Employment Tribunals have jurisdiction to hear unfair dismissal complaints brought by employees who work outside Great Britain? Nigel Brockley highlights the recent caselaw on this topic.’
No. 5 Chambers, 4th December 2014
Source: www.no5.com
‘Where the jurisdiction of the court is in issue the court should make a prompt determination of jurisdiction at or near the start of proceedings. In this case that determination of jurisdiction should have concluded with a declaration pursuant to BIIR, Article 17, that the English court had no jurisdiction other than the jurisdiction to make short term, provisional protective measures pursuant to BIIR, Article 20.’
Sovereign Chambers, 4th December 2013
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
‘Where, in a case involving alleged breaches of rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Court of Appeal was faced with a conflict between decisions of the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights, the court could in appropriate circumstances dismiss the appeal and grant permission to appeal to the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict between the domestic law and that of the European Court, without hearing argument or expressing its views on the case.’
WLR Daily, 9th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re Corey [2013] UKSC 76; [2013] WLR (D) 479
‘A High Court judge in Northern Ireland, having found that a review by parole commissioners of a life sentence prisoner’s recall to prison from his release on licence had been conducted unfairly and in breach of article 4.5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, was not entitled to exercise the court’s inherent jurisdiction so as to order the prisoner’s release on bail pending a re-hearing of the review.’
WLR Daily, 4th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Smith v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2013] EWCA Civ 1585; [2013] WLR (D) 473
‘In order for the court to have jurisdiction to make an order under CPR r 31.16 for disclosure before proceedings had started, it was not a requirement that the applicant have an arguable case in those proceedings.’
WLR Daily, 5th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 4th December 2013
‘The European court of human rights exceeds its legitimate powers, usurps the role of politicians and “undermines the democratic process”, one of the UK’s most senior judges has warned.’
The Guardian, 28th November 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Habitual Residence) [2013] EWCA Civ 1434; [2013] WLR (D) 461
‘Where a child was habitually resident in Sweden at the time when the courts of England and Wales were seised of care proceedings relating to the child, the fact that there were no extant proceedings relating to the child in Sweden did not prevent the Swedish courts having jurisdiction under article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003.’
WLR Daily, 13th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Isis Investments Ltd v Oscatello Investments Ltd and others [2013] EWCA Civ 1493; [2013] WLR (D) 459
“Articles 10(2)(e) and 32 of Council Directive 2001/24/EC required a careful construction of the phrases ‘lawsuits pending’ and ‘pending lawsuit’ if one were to rely on the provisions in order to permit a departure from the general principle contained within article 10(1) that a credit institution should be wound up in accordance with the laws of its home member state.”
WLR Daily, 27th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal handed down two important decisions last week on the application of conflict of law principles to cartel follow-on damages claims: Deutsche Bahn AG & Ors v Morgan Advanced Materials plc & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1484 and Ryanair Limited v Esso Italiana Srl [2013] EWCA Civ 1450. The defendants in each case challenged the jurisdiction of the English courts to hear damages claims arising from their cartel activities.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 24th November 2013
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025