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.Reuse content