The court was entitled to refuse to recognise a Ukrainian judgment on the basis that it involved a flagrant breach of the principle of legal certainty contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR) art.6 and, as a result, to have refused to set aside an English default judgment.
Conflict of law
29 February 2012
While the English court should apply a strong presumption that the procedures of other ECHR states complied with art.6, it was not wrong for an English court to consider whether a judgment of a court of an ECHR state contravened the ECHR.
For the appellant Natsionalna Aktsionerna Kompaniya Naftogaz
20 Essex Street’s Alexander Layton QC; One Essex Court’s Michael Fealy; Simmons & Simmons partner Ian Hammond
For the respondent Merchant International Co
Blackstone Chambers’ Michael Beloff QC; Monckton Chambers’ Robert Palmer; Hogan Lovells International associate Charles Brasted
An “organised grouping of employees […] which has as its principal purpose the carrying out of […] activities […] on behalf of [a particular] client” within
the meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 reg. 3(3)(a)(i) would only exist where the relevant employees were organised by reference to the requirements of the client in question.
For the appellant Eddie Stobart
9 St John Street’s Joanne Woodward; Hill Dickinson associate Philip Hodges
For the first respondent Moreman
Waring Associates partner Jane Waring
For the second respondent
FJG Logistics Taylor & Emmet partner David Poddington
For the third respondent Cooper
Dere Street Barristers’ Chambers’ Bruce Frew; Thompsons solicitor Kate Lea
10 February 2012
A supplementary protection certificate granted in respect of a patent relating to a biotechnological technique was invalid where the product, in allegedly infringing the patent, was not identified in the wording of the claim of the patent as the product of the technique.
Declaration granted in favour of claimant
For the claimant Novartis
3 New Square’s Simon Thorley QC, Justin Turner QC and Joe Delaney; Allen & Overy partner Nicola Dagg
For the defendant Medimmune
8 New Square’s Richard Meade QC and James Whyte; 3 New Square’s Tom Mitcheson; Marks & Clerk partner Mike Gilbert
25 January 2012
The court interpreted the Water Industry Act 1991 s.7(4)(b) and s.36(3)(a)(i) and stipulated that the ‘unserved status’ criterion for substituting one water and sewerage undertaker for another did not require that premises had never been served by a sitting undertaker. For the purposes of applying the ‘large user’ criterion in s.7(4)(bb) and s.7(5), ‘premises’ was not to be equated with buildings could apply to a site as a whole.
For the appellant Thames Water Utilities
Blackstone Chambers’ Michael Fordham QC; Monckton Chambers’ Kassie Smith; Berwin Leighton Paisner senior associate James Marshall
For the respondent WSRA
Blackstone Chambers’ Monica Carss-Frisk QC and Kieron Beal; Brick Court Chambers’ Alan Maclean QC; all instructed directly by the Office of Water Services Principal Legal Adviser
Administration of justice
The court gave guidance on the approach to be taken by the Technology & Construction Court in relatively low-value claims and their transfer to the county court.
For the claimant West Country Renovations
4 Pump Court’s Peter Oliver instructed directly
For the defendant McDowell
Atkin Chambers’ Camille Slow; Mishcon de Reya partner Richard Gerstein
2 March 2012
Condition B in the Pension Schemes (Categories of Country and Requirements for Overseas Pension Schemes and Recognised Overseas Pension Schemes) Regulations 2006 reg.2(3) only applied if the relevant foreign country had no system at all for approval for tax purposes of any kind of pension scheme.
For the appellant TMF Trustees
Gray’s Inn Tax Chambers’ Hui Ling McCarthy; Squire Sanders barrister Peter Vaines
For the respondent Revenue & Customs Commissioners
Pump Court Tax Chambers’ Elizabeth Wilson; instructed directly by HM Revenue & Customs Solicitor’s Office
A county court judge had not erred in concluding that a rentcharge, which had been created in 1990 by a transfer of registered land, was a valid ‘estate rentcharge’ for the purposes of the Rentcharges
Act 1977 s.2(4)(b).
For the appellant Smith Brothers
Ropewalk Chambers’ Soofi Din; Dewes managing partner Adrian Kennedy
For the respondent Canwell Estate
Hardwicke’s John De Waal; Ansons solicitor Neil Faunch