Latest Cases

Costs – Security for costs. The claimant company's application for security for costs in respect of an application by the fourth defendant company (Berenger) failed. Berenger had applied to discharge an order appointing receivers over the second defendant company. While there had been delay on the part of Berenger, that delay had not enabled the claimant to demonstrate abuse by Berenger in the sense of lack of will to litigate in accordance with the overriding objective.

Extradition – Private and family life. The judge had not erred in her conclusion under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and had not been wrong to order the appellant's extradition to Spain. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Spain to serve a sentence of imprisonment for robbery committed in November 2009.

Extradition – Private and family life. The judge's conclusion that extradition would not amount to a disproportionate interference of the appellant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been the right conclusion. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to serve an activated suspended sentence of one year's imprisonment, including for subjecting his wife to a course of conduct in which he had physically and mentally assaulted her.

Extradition – Proportionality. The judge ought to have determined that the appellant's extradition to Hungary would be disproportionate because of s 21(A)(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, the likely penalty that would be imposed if the appellant was found guilty of the extradition offence, given that she had spent eight-and-a-half months in prison following her arrest under the European arrest warrant. Accordingly, the Administrative Court allowed her appeal against orders for her extradition to face trial for using false information to obtain a Hungarian passport.

Extradition – Private and family life. Having regard to the factors in favour of extradition and to the factors which might militate against extradition, when conducting the balancing exercise, the extradition of the appellant to serve a sentence, albeit that it amounted to weeks rather than months, was not disproportionate. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Slovakia to serve an activated suspended sentence of five months' imprisonment for stealing aluminium luggage racks and a steel frame.

Extradition – Extradition crime. The respondent judicial authority had failed to prove to the criminal standard that the conduct for which the appellant's extradition to Poland was sought would constitute an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom, namely s 2(b) of the Theft Act 1978, because it had not proved to the criminal standard the element of deception. Accordingly, the Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for her extradition.

Double taxation – Relief. In the deemed world introduced by s 15(2) of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, the appellant had clearly been carrying on a business, and thus 'an enterprise of a Contracting State', within the meaning of art 7(1) of the UK and South Africa Double Taxation Treaty, which was not displaced by art 14. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant's appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) and restored the decision that the UK was not entitled to tax his income from those activities.

Pleading – Striking out. There was no basis upon which the defendants should be given an opportunity to amend their defence to the claimant's application for possession and payment of the sum due under a loan, other than by substituting 'the first defendant' for 'the defendants' on one issue. The Chancery Division, further held that defendants' case that formed the relevant issues was bound to fail and it was appropriate to strike out the relevant paragraphs of the defence.

Town and country planning – Road investment strategy. The defendant government-owned company had not acted unlawfully in declining to include, in a consultation about a new access route to the Port of Liverpool, the option of building a tunnel. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the claimant council's application for judicial review.

Company – Scheme of arrangement. House of Fraser (Funding) plc succeeded in its application for an order, pursuant to s 899 of the Companies Act 2006, for the sanction of a scheme of arrangement which was proposed by the company. The Chancery Division held that it had the requisite jurisdiction, that the statutory requirements for the sanctioning of the scheme had been satisfied and that, in all the circumstances, it was appropriate to sanction the scheme.