The European Court of Justice recently found that the EU Service Regulation must be interpreted and applied to ensure a fair balance between the interests of a party that serves documents and those of the addressee by reconciling the objectives of efficiency and speed of service of procedural documents with the need to ensure that the addressee's right to defence against the documents is adequately protected through the guarantee of their receipt.
The extent to which sleeping in vehicles is allowed under EU law has been the subject of much debate in the road transportation industry. EU employers of drivers of road transport vehicles will have noted with interest the European Court of Justice (ECJ) advocate general's recent opinion that drivers cannot take their regular weekly rest periods inside their vehicles. Although it may be several months before the ECJ reaches a decision on this issue, the court usually follows the advocate general's advice.
EU Regulation 655/2014 establishing a European account preservation order (EAPO) procedure will enter into force in January 2017, providing creditors with the opportunity to attach bank accounts throughout the European Union on the basis of a single application. The EAPO Regulation was driven by a European Commission study which showed that creditors encounter many difficulties when collecting outstanding claims in cases with cross-border implications.
In the framework of the world-famous case between the Republic of Congo and Commisimpex, the Supreme Court recently established a new rule to be followed in order to proceed to a seizure when an immunity from jurisdiction applies. The decision demonstrates the importance of applying the same rules of law in relation to immunity from jurisdiction or execution – to such an extent that the court justified the retroactive application of the Sapin II Law.
A recent Supreme Court decision confirms that the estoppel principle is recognised under French law as a general principle and is now a procedural tool in the hands of litigators. However, the decision also revives the debate about the principle's true effectiveness before the French courts.
Under French law, proceedings may be terminated on several procedural grounds. One of them is the abatement of a suit, which results in the termination of the proceedings without considering the merits of the case. In two decisions issued on December 16 2016, the Supreme Court specified the subtle conditions applicable to the enforcement of such a drastic procedural penalty.
As with many other national laws, French law recognises parties' right to gather evidence at the pre-trial stage by way of a discovery procedure (ie, judges will require opponents to disclose files and documents under certain circumstances). However, the confidentiality of targeted files and documents can be a major obstacle to the success of such claims. The Supreme Court recently held that confidentiality provided by US legal privilege is unlikely to frustrate a discovery action undertaken in France.
The Supreme Court recently answered the question of whether a party that is summoned by the Ministry of Economy before a French court over a competition law infringement is entitled to contend, by way of defence, that the court in question has no jurisdiction over the claim. The judgment provides a clear rule of law: competition claims between private parties remain freely arbitrated, but actions by the ministry cannot be submitted, in any case, to arbitration.
A recent landmark judgment of the Court of Final Appeal confirms that in deciding whether it is fair and just to grant a protective costs order in public interest litigation, the courts should be apprised of an applicant's financial position. In the case of a corporate applicant, it is proper to inquire not only into the assets belonging to the company, but also other sources of funding to which it has access. The case is the first in Hong Kong in which the courts have extensively set out the relevant legal principles in this regard.
The High Court recently dismissed proceedings seeking to compel the Hospital Authority to disclose confidential patient records in connection with professional disciplinary proceedings. The decision serves as a good reminder of the tension that exists between the competing interests of preserving client (or patient) privacy rights and the necessity and public interest in the proper administration of professional disciplinary proceedings.
A recent case involved a contested dispute over the liquidators' access to certain documents stated to be in the respondent's possession or control. At first instance, the court refused to order the respondent to give wide-ranging production of documents to the liquidators on the basis that the documents sought did not fall within Section 221(3) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance. This judgment was recently successfully appealed by the liquidators.
In defending themselves against a claim for professional negligence brought by a former client, two law firms and the individual solicitor recently successfully applied to strike out the entire claim against them, with costs awarded on a more generous ('indemnity') basis. The two related judgments are a salutary reminder of the need for a plaintiff to plead all material particulars, failing which there is a real prospect that their claim could be struck out as plainly defective.
The recent judgment in Tao Soh Ngun v HSBC International Trustee Ltd arose from an interesting piece of litigation. In this case, the plaintiff appears to have tried to amend her pleading to add new allegations of breach and loss based on matters that did not exist at the time when the proceedings commenced. To have allowed such amendments would not have sat comfortably with the 'relate back' principle (ie, that an amendment takes effect from the date of the original pleading).
The Supreme Court recently issued two judgments regarding consumer law. In the first, the Supreme Court held that the courts should take a pragmatic view of consumers' rights considering their relative disadvantage with regard to suppliers of goods or services. In the second, the court held that, in the context of a vehicle insurance policy, the mere failure of the vehicle owner to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle should not bar settlement of genuine claims.
In an important recent case regarding contract law, the Supreme Court held that the commercial courts should not seek to interpret the implied terms of a contract. In a second notable case, the court examined whether an increase in coal prices (due to a change in Indonesian law) could be cited as a force majeure event by certain power-generating companies that were sourcing coal from Indonesia. Finally, the court also recently issued an important decision in a suit for damages and wrongful termination.
The most important criminal law Supreme Court judgments in 2017 included a case which held that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, on the grant of bail, violates the right to equality and right to life. Elsewhere, the court clarified the criteria for quashing criminal proceedings and issued certain guidelines in order to prevent the misuse of Section 498A of the Penal Code.
A division bench of the Supreme Court recently decided to examine the correctness of a judgment by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi. The NCDRC had held that, among other things, consumer disputes cannot be settled by arbitration. This decision begs the question whether the line of reasoning preferred by the NCDRC is likely to invite more critical scrutiny by the Supreme Court.
Throughout 2017, the Supreme Court issued judgments on public interest litigation cases. These include reviewing the way in which senior advocates are designated, determining whether to constitute a special investigation team and establishing fast-track courts for criminal cases.
Straitened times have led to an increase in litigation before the courts involving lay litigants or litigants in person acting without formal legal representation. Notwithstanding that such litigants may not have instructed a solicitor or barrister, they sometimes appear with assistance from a non-legally qualified third party. Recent practice directions across the various levels of the court provide important guidance on the scope of such assistance.
A recent Court of Appeal decision has restored certainty that under Irish law there is no general duty of good faith in the context of commercial contracts. The decision has a wide application and is of interest to all parties across the entire spectrum of commercial contractual arrangements. It clarifies important questions in relation to the proper approach to the interpretation and implication of terms in a commercial contract.
Two new statutory instruments (SI 254/2016 and SI 255/2016), which make wide-ranging reforms to the procedural rules applicable to civil litigation, recently entered into force. However, a number of the rules contained in SI 255 are dependent on the assignment of list judges and registrars to the chancery and non-jury lists. The High Court has stated that it does not intend to assign either list judges or registrars until the necessary resources have been put in place.
In a recent case, the High Court upheld a centuries-old prohibition on litigation funding by a third party in return for a share of the proceeds with the party that has a genuine interest in the case. Both parties sought leave for a leapfrog appeal of the High Court's decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined that this case did in fact meet the 'exceptional circumstances' requirement to justify a leapfrog appeal.
The Central Bank's inquiry process received resounding endorsement by the High Court in decisions against two former directors of the Irish Nationwide Building Society, Michael Fingleton and John Stanley Purcell. In July 2015 the Central Bank published a notice of inquiry confirming that it was to investigate alleged regulatory breaches. Fingleton and Purcell brought separate challenges aimed at overturning the decision, but the claims were recently dismissed.