Monday 24 June 1996
R v MAFF ex p Hedley Lomas (Ire-land) Ltd (Case 237/94); ECJ; 23 May 1996.
A refusal to issue export licences to permit the applicant to export live sheep to Spain, on the ground that they would suffer treatment in Spanish slaughterhouses which was contrary to Directive (EC) 74/577 on stunning animals before slaughter, constituted a quantitative restriction on exports contrary to art 4 of the EC Treaty. Such a restriction on the free movement of goods could be justified under art 36 on the ground of protecting the health and life of animals, but not where, as here, EC Directives provided for the harmonisation of measures necessary to achieve this. One member state was not entitled to adopt on its own measures designed to obviate a breach by another member state of rules of Community law.
A member state was obliged to make reparation for damage caused to an individual by its breach of a rule of Community law where the rule infringed was intended to confer rights on individuals, the breach was sufficiently serious and there was a direct causal link between the breach and the damage sustained, such reparation to be made according to the state's domestic law on liability.
Soden v British and Commonwealth Holdings plc (in admin);CA (Russell, Hirst, Peter Gibson LJJ) 15 May 1996.
When a member of a company claimed damages for negligent misrepresentation by the company's directors as to its value, inducing him to purchase shares in the market, the damages were not due to him in his character of a member within the meaning of s 74(2)(f) of the Insolvency Act 1986. A sum due as damages for misrepresentation could not be said to be due by way of dividends profits or otherwise and dicta to the contrary in Re Addlestone Linoleum Co (1887) 37 Ch 191 were obiter. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted.
Robin Potts QC, Dan Prentice (Cameron Markby) for the appellants; William Stubbs QC, Catherine Roberts (Stephenson Harwood) for the respondents.
Allason v Campbell & ors; QBD (Sir Maurice Drake) 2 May 1996.
A claim for damages for malicious falsehood would not succeed, even if the plaintiff had established that the newspaper article concerned had been published falsely and with malice, if he was unable to show that he had suffered any financial loss as a result.
The plaintiff in person; Charles Gray QC, Heather Rogers (Theodore Goddard) for the defendants.
- 1 The BBC has just done more to eradicate ‘terrorism’ than all our wars since 9/11
- 3 Mystery man who gave mum heart-warming note on train 'wanted to put a smile on her face'
King Salman: Just five days in, Saudi Arabia's new king has already overseen a beheading
Saudi preacher who 'raped and tortured' his five -year-old daughter to death is released after paying 'blood money'
Mystery man who gave mum heart-warming note on train 'wanted to put a smile on her face'
Michelle Obama highlights harsh restrictions faced by Saudi women after meeting King Salman without wearing a headscarf
Chilling drone footage captures Auschwitz ahead of 70th anniversary of liberation
'We would evict Queen from Buckingham Palace and allocate her council house,' say Greens
French court convicts three over homophobic tweets, in case hailed as a 'significant victory' by LGBT rights campaigners
Greece elections: Syriza and EU on collision course after election win for left-wing party
British Muslim school children suffering a backlash of abuse following Paris attacks
British grandmother Lindsay Sandiford faces execution by firing squad in Indonesia
Liberal Democrat minister defends comments suggesting immigration causes pub closures
Negotiable: Recruitment Genius: One of the world's leading suppliers and manuf...
£6240 per annum: Recruitment Genius: Apprentices are required to join a privat...
£40000 per annum: Sauce Recruitment: This is an exciting opportunity for a HR...
£35000 - £40000 per annum: Ashdown Group: A well-established organisation oper...