swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Commercial - From: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 21 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.
Scandlines Svergie AB v Port of Helsingborg Case COMP/A.36.568.D3
2000
European, Commercial
(Year?) The Commission dismissed a complaint by a ferry company of excessive and discriminatory port charges by the port operator. The Commission said that, in calculating the production costs, it was necessary to take account not only of the costs actually incurred by the port in providing its services, but also additional costs and other factors which were not reflected in the audited profits and losses, such as high sunk costs, and the benefits to customers conferred by the particular location of the port.
1 Citers
Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex Parte Thomson Holidays Ltd Times, 12 January 2000
12 Jan 2000
CA
Judicial Review, Commercial, Consumer
Regulations made by the Secretary of State which purported to restrict the range of contracts which could be made between tour operators and travel agents were beyond his powers. The ability to make such regulations followed directly only from a report prepared by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and in this case the regulations went beyond the findings, and were to that extent ultra vires.
Fair Trading Act 1973 56(2) - Foreign Package Holidays (Tour Operators and Travel Agents) Order 1998 (1998 N0 1945)
Estee Lauder Cosmetics GmbH and Co. OHG v Lancaster Group GmbH C-220/98; [2000] IPandT 380; [2000] EUECJ C-220/98
13 Jan 2000
ECJ
European, Commercial
Europa Approximation of laws - Cosmetic products - Packaging and labelling - Directive 76/768 - Measures to prevent advertising attributing to cosmetic products characteristics which they do not possess - Ban on the importing or marketing of a cosmetic product whose name includes the term `lifting' - Whether permissible - Condition - Whether such a name is misleading - To be assessed by the national courts (EC Treaty, Arts 30 and 36 (now, after amendment, Arts 28 EC and 30 EC); Council Directive 76/768, Art. 6(3))
"It should be borne in mind that when it has fallen to the court, in the context of the interpretation of Directive 84/450, to weigh the risk of misleading consumers against the requirements of the free movement of goods, it has held that, in order to determine whether a particular description, trade mark or promotional description or statement is misleading, it is necessary to take into account the presumed expectations of an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect (see, in particular, Gut Springenheide GmbH v Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt-Amt fur Lebensmittel-Uberwachung Case C-210/96 [1998] ECR1-4657 (para. 31))."
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Motis Exports Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet Af 1912 Akleselskab ('the Motis) Times, 26 January 2000; Gazette, 20 January 2000; [2000] 1 Lloyds Rep 211 (CA; [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 91
20 Jan 2000
CA
Stuart-Smith LJ
Transport, Contract, Commercial
Shippers were liable under a bill of lading. The goods had been obtained from them fraudulently by means of forged bills of lading. They claimed under an exemption clause in the contract, but the claim failed since the exclusions from liability for loss or damage whilst in their possession before loading or after discharge, did not excuse them for what was a deliberate if mistaken act. Under a bill of lading contract a shipowner is both entitled and bound to deliver the goods against production of an original bill of lading, provided he has no notice of any other claim or better title to the goods.
1 Cites
Deutsche Post Ag v Gesellschaft Mbh and Another; ECJ 15-Mar-2000 - Times, 15 March 2000; C-148/97; C-147/97; [2000] EUECJ C-147/97; [2000] EUECJ C-148/97
Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports and others v Commission C-395/96; [2000] ECR I-1365; [2000] EUECJ C-395/96-P
16 Mar 2000
ECJ
European, Commercial
ECJ It is clear from the very wording of Articles 85(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) and 86(a) to (d) of the Treaty (now Articles 81(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) EC and 82(a) to (d) EC) that the same practice may give rise to an infringement of both provisions. Simultaneous application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty cannot therefore be ruled out a priori. However, the objectives pursued by each of those two provisions must be distinguished. Article 85 of the Treaty applies to agreements, decisions and concerted practices which may appreciably affect trade between Member States, regardless of the position on the market of the undertakings concerned. Article 86 of the Treaty, on the other hand, deals with the conduct of one or more economic operators consisting in the abuse of a position of economic strength which enables the operator concerned to hinder the maintenance of effective competition on the relevant market by allowing it to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and, ultimately, consumers.
EC Treaty 85
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Close Asset Finance Ltd v Care Graphics Machinery Ltd; QBD 21-Mar-2000 - Times, 21 March 2000; Gazette, 23 March 2000
Commission v Solvay Sa Joined Cases C-287/95P and C-288/95P; Same v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc Case C-286/95P Times, 14 April 2000; [2000] EUECJ C-288/95P
6 Apr 2000
ECJ
Commercial
The text of a decision of the Commission only took effect if authenticated, and the decision was void unless so authenticated. The fact if so that no separate damage flowed from that failure, and that no other procedural defect applied could not rescue the decision. The requirement was fundamental and was required under the Treaty. It formed an essential part of the procedure and was necessary to allow certainty.
ECJ (Competition) Appeal - Actions for annulment - Pleas in law - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Failure to authenticate decisions adopted by the college of Commissioners - Issue that may be raised of the Court's own motion.
[ Bailii ]
Roman Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA C-281/98; [2000] ECR I-4139; [2000] EUECJ C-281/98
6 Jun 2000
ECJ
European, Commercial
Europa Under the preliminary ruling procedure provided for by Article 177 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 234 EC), it is for the national courts alone, which are seised of a case and which must assume responsibility for the judgment to be given, to determine, having regard to the particular features of each case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable them to give judgment and the relevance of the questions which they refer to the Court. A request for a preliminary ruling from a national court may be rejected only if it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law sought by that court bears no relation to the actual nature of the case or the subject-matter of the main action.
The prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down in Article 48 of the Treaty (now, after amendment Article 39 EC), which is drafted in general terms and is not specifically addressed to the Member States, also applies to conditions of employment fixed by private persons.
Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) precludes an employer from requiring persons applying to take part in a recruitment competition to provide evidence of their linguistic knowledge exclusively by means of one particular diploma issued only in one particular province of a Member State. That requirement puts nationals of the other Member States at a disadvantage, since persons not resident in that province have little chance of acquiring the diploma, a certificate of bilingualism, and it will be difficult, or even impossible, for them to gain access to the employment in question. The requirement is not justified by any objective factors unrelated to the nationality of the persons concerned and in proportion to the aim legitimately pursued. In that regard, even though requiring an applicant for a post to have a certain level of linguistic knowledge may be legitimate and possession of a diploma such as the certificate may constitute a criterion for assessing that knowledge, the fact that it is impossible to submit proof of the required linguistic knowledge by any other means, in particular by equivalent qualifications obtained in other Member States, must be considered disproportionate in relation to the aim in view. Therefore, the requirement constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality contrary to Article 48 of the Treaty.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Alzetta and Others v Commission (State Aid) [2000] EUECJ T-5/98
15 Jun 2000
ECFI
Transport, Commercial
ECFI Carriage of goods by road - State aid - Action for annulment - Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition - Conditions for derogation from the prohibition laid down by Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) - New aid or existing aid - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of proportionality - Statement of reasons.
[ Bailii ]
Tamarind International Ltd and others v Eastern Natural Gas (Retail) Ltd and Another Times, 27 June 2000; Gazette, 29 June 2000; [2000] EuLR 708; [2000] CLC 1397; [2000] EuLR 908
27 Jun 2000
QBD
Morison J
Agency, Commercial
Where self employed agents had been taken on to market the respondent's services, and those agencies were terminated, such activities were those of commercial agents within the Directive, and they were entitled to compensation. Whether he was a secondary agent or not was a question foreign to English law, and not to be gleaned other than through the Regulations and the facts. If the agents are not secondary, they are within the Regulations. Here the respondent would derive a long term benefit from their activities, and they were not secondary.
Morison J reviewed the genesis of the Directive and made reference to Law Commission Report No 84, 1977 which said: "The provisions of the Directive were clearly based upon the German Commercial Code and related to a special category of agent who acted for his principal 'who must be his standing client'. In German law the commercial agent is 'identifiable as a member of a particular social group with special social and economic needs'. Such an agent was a quasi employee requiring protection from exploitation".
Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 No 3053
1 Citers
K/S Merc-Scandia XXXXII v Underwriters to Lloyd'S Policy 25T 1054 87 and Others Gazette, 20 July 2000; Times, 08 August 2000
20 Jul 2000
QBD
Commercial, Insurance
The Insurers had avoided a policy after a claim had been brought, and the insured had produced a fraudulent document. Having won their case, the applicants sought to enforce the award against the insurers. The insurers were held not to be excused under the policy. The duty of good faith applied on matters up to the claim, but need not apply to all questions which arose after a claim had been validly made. The forged document did not demand that the insurers assume any new risk, and the insurers remained answerable.
Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930
1 Citers
Bouygues (Uk) Ltd v Dahl-Jensen (Uk) Ltd (In Liquidation) Times, 17 August 2000; Gazette, 14 September 2000; [2000] BLR 522
17 Aug 2000
CA
Chadwick LJ
Construction, Arbitration, Commercial, Insolvency
When the decision of an adjudicator was challenged, the court should ask whether the adjudicator had either asked the right question but in the wrong way, or whether he had even answered the wrong question. The procedure was intended to provide a quick and summary disposal, but that procedure might not be appropriate in cases involving insolvency of one party and or cross claims. Any creditor who owes a debt to an insolvent company, no matter how long overdue, may set off that debt in full against his own claim in the liquidation.
Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108
1 Cites
1 Citers
Unilever Italia SpA v Central Food SpA C-443/98; [2000] EUECJ C-443/98
26 Sep 2000
ECJ
Commercial
ECJ National rules embodying a specification contained in a document which lays down the characteristics required of a product, including the requirements applicable to the product as regards labelling, constitute technical specifications within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 83/189 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, irrespective of the grounds on which they were adopted. The inapplicability of a technical regulation as a legal consequence of non-compliance with the obligation of notification under Article 8 of Directive 83/189 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations may be relied on in proceedings between individuals. The same applies to non-compliance with the obligation to observe the periods of postponement of adoption of a draft technical regulation pursuant to Article 9 of that directive. Whilst it is true that a directive cannot of itself impose obligations on an individual and cannot therefore be relied on as such against an individual, that case-law does not apply in proceedings between individuals where non-compliance with Article 8 or Article 9 of Directive 83/189, which constitutes a substantial procedural defect, renders a technical regulation adopted in breach of either of those articles inapplicable. In such proceedings, Directive 83/189, which creates neither rights nor obligations for individuals, does not in any way define the substantive scope of the legal rule on the basis of which the national court must decide the case before it. It is therefore incumbent on the national court, in civil proceedings between individuals concerning contractual rights and obligations, to refuse to apply a national technical regulation which was adopted during a period of postponement of adoption prescribed in Article 9 of Directive 83/189.
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for Health and Others, Ex Parte Imperial Tobacco Ltd and Others etc; ECJ 10-Oct-2000 - Times, 10 October 2000; C-376/99; C-74/99
Italy v Commission (State Aid) C-105/99; [2000] EUECJ C-105/99
19 Oct 2000
ECJ
Commercial
ECJ State aid - Aid from the Region of Sardinia to shipping companies in Sardinia - Adverse effect on competition and trade between Member States - Statement of reasons.
[ Bailii ]
Bayer AG v Commission (Rec 2000,p II-3383) Times, 09 February 2001; T-41/96; [2000] ECR II-3383; [2000] EUECJ T-41/96
26 Oct 2000
ECFI
European, Commercial
The Commission had found that Bayer's policy of restricting parallel imports of its pharmaceutical drug, ADALAT, constituted part of its dealership agreements, and had annuled them. Held: Although Bayer clearly intended to restrict parallel imports by limiting the deliveries of ADALAT to its wholesalers in France and Spain to the quantities that they required for their domestic markets, the CFI found on analysis of the facts that the wholesalers had not acquiesced in a policy of restricting their exports, which was indeed against their interests, and "in order for there to be an agreement within the meaning of Article [101(1)] of the Treaty it is sufficient that the undertakings in question should have expressed their joint intention to conduct themselves on the market in a specific way . . As regards the form in which that common intention is expressed, it is sufficient for a stipulation to be the expression of the parties' intention to behave on the market in accordance with its terms . . without its having to constitute a valid and binding contract under national law.
It follows that the concept of an agreement within the meaning of Article [101(1)] of the Treaty, as interpreted by the case-law, centres around the existence of a concurrence of wills between at least two parties, the form in which it is manifested being unimportant so long as it constitutes the faithful expression of the parties' intention.
In certain circumstances, measures adopted or imposed in an apparently unilateral manner by a manufacturer in the context of his continuing relations with his distributors have been regarded as constituting an agreement within the meaning of Article [101(1)] of the Treaty . . That case-law shows that a distinction should be drawn between cases in which an undertaking has adopted a genuinely unilateral measure, and thus without the express or implied participation of another undertaking, and those in which the unilateral character of the measure is merely apparent. Whilst the former do not fall within Article [101(1)] of the Treaty, the latter must be regarded as revealing an agreement between undertakings and may therefore fall within the scope of that article. That is the case, in particular, with practices and measures in restraint of competition which, though apparently adopted unilaterally by the manufacturer in the context of its contractual relations with its dealers, nevertheless receive at least the tacit acquiescence of those dealers.
It is also clear from that case-law that the Commission cannot hold that apparently unilateral conduct on the part of a manufacturer, adopted in the context of the contractual relations which he maintains with his dealers, in reality forms the basis of an agreement between undertakings within the meaning of Article [101(1)] of the Treaty if it does not establish the existence of an acquiescence by the other partners, express or implied, in the attitude adopted by the manufacturer."
The concept of 'agreement' for the purposes of consideration of agreements to act in restraint of trade went only beyond a genuinely unilateral decision to act in a certain way. In cases where the action went beyond that and where the unilateral character was merely apparent, and a tacit agreement of others was shown then that could amount to an agreement. Some concurrence of wills was necessary, but the way in which that was shown was unnecessary.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Ingmar Gb Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc; ECJ 16-Nov-2000 - Times, 16 November 2000; C-381/98; [2000] ECR I-9305; [2000] EUECJ C-381/98; [2001] 1 CMLR 9; [2000] EUECJ C-381/98 - O
Neste Markkinointi Oy v Yotuuli Ky and Others C-214/99; [2001] 4 CMLR 993; [2000] EUECJ C-214/99
7 Dec 2000
ECJ
Advocate-General Fennelly
European, Commercial
The court considered a petrol station agreement under which the operator of the station agreed to take fuel from a single supplier. The agreement was for 10 years and thereafter the operator could terminate the agreement by giving a year's notice. Neste acquired the supplier and after the 10-year period had expired the operator stopped purchasing fuel from Neste without giving the one-year notice. Neste recovered possession of the station and sought compensation. The operator contended that the exclusive purchasing obligation was void. Held: An exclusive purchasing agreement for fuel differs from one for other products such as beer or ice cream in that only one brand of fuel is sold in a petrol station and duration rather than the exclusivity clause was the decisive factor in the market-sealing affect. Another feature supporting a notice period of a year as reasonably protecting the interests of both parties and limiting the restrictive effect of the contract on competition in the relevant market. In those circumstances, when the contracts which might be terminated on one year's notice represented only a very small proportion of all the exclusive purchasing agreements entered into by a supplier, they made no significant contribution to the cumulative effect and so were not within Art. 81 (1). "A relatively short notice period in certain retail markets, like those for ice cream and beer where there is far greater product differentiation than in the retail petroleum-fuels supply market, could still contribute to a not insignificant degree to an overall tying-in effect flowing from a major supplier's network of agreements. However, if, at the time a dispute arises, the agreements in question give resellers a virtually unrestricted opportunity, without being subject to penalties on existing loans or any other disguised termination disincentives, to switch suppliers, it is difficult to conceive of any adverse effect on competition on the relevant market flowing from them."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice Cream Ltd; ECJ 14-Dec-2000 - Times, 02 February 2001; C-344/98; [2001] 4 CMLR 14; [2000] ECR 1-11369; [2000] EUECJ C-344/98
MacDonald v Taree Holdings Ltd Times, 28 December 2000; Gazette, 08 February 2001
28 Dec 2000
ChD
Commercial, Litigation Practice
It was wrong to deprive a party of his costs because only of his failure to serve an appropriate schedule of costs at least 24 hours before the summary assessment hearing. The court should consider first, a brief adjournment, and second whether the case should be stood over for a detailed assessment, and third whether it should be stood over for a summary assessment. In the absence of other aggravating features, it was wrong to refuse entirely a party his costs. The remedy was disproportionate. The court should make use of other ways of penalising a party in default.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 44
