Latest Cases

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal against a costs order made following the trial of her medical negligence claim against the defendant. Among other things, it held that CPR Pt 36 did not preclude the making of an issue-based or proportionate costs order. However, a successful claimant was to be deprived of all or part of her costs only if the court considered that it would be unjust for her to be awarded all or that part of her costs and that decision fell to be made having regard to 'all the circumstances of the case'. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Latvia to face prosecution for four thefts alleged to have been committed in 2007. In particular, it rejected the submission that he should have been discharged because the issue of his surrender was res judicata on account of his discharge in Scotland in extradition proceedings for substantially the same matters, as the principle of res judicata had no application in extradition proceedings. 

Company – Director. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on an appeal against findings that the appellants had dishonestly assisted A, the 100% owner and sole director of the respondent company, to breach his duties to that company under s 175 of the Companies Act 2006, and had dishonestly assisted A in misapplying £1.25m of the company's money. It dismissed the appeal, save that the judge's conclusion that the appellants were liable to compensate the company for a particular sum of £500,000, as part of the misapplication claim, would be reversed. 

Khan v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis & others 

Criminal procedure – Warrant to take fingerprints – Suspension. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing to pass a bill of suspension in which the complainer sought suspension of a warrant the sheriff granted to police to take his fingerprints while summary proceedings were in progress, the court held that it was competent for it to hear the bill, as a bill to suspend a warrant of the kind granted in the instant case was not included in the transfer of powers to the Sheriff Appeal Court and such bills remained subject to the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction; and the sheriff was entitled to regard the circumstances as special and to exercise his discretion in way that he did. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 7 of Council Directive (EEC) 93/13. The requests had been made in proceedings between, in one case, Mr Sales Sinués and Caixabank SA and, in the other, Mr Drame Ba and Catalunya Caixa SA, both relating to the annulment of contractual terms in mortgage loan agreements. 

Customs and excise – Duties. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) ruled on an appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) in which the FTT had allowed the taxpayer company's appeal against an alleged customs debt owed to the Revenue. The tribunal held that the FTT had erred by refusing to grant the Revenue's application for permission to amend its response to the taxpayer's appeal but, that in all other respects, the appeal would be dismissed. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Human trafficking – Mutual corroboration – Sentencing. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals against conviction and sentence by an appellant who was found guilty of eight offences of human trafficking, the court rejected contentions that the sheriff misdirected jury in relation to mutual corroboration in directing them that there was a legal sufficiency and that his use of the word 'rule' on twelve occasions, when describing mutual corroboration, amounted to a misdirection; furthermore it held that only a custodial sentence could have been regarded as appropriate and that the sheriff's selection of 3 years' imprisonment could not be described as excessive. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant's claim against a solicitors' firm and a conveyancing firm (HOC) that had acted for D. The claimant had purportedly purchased property from D which D had falsely represented as being his own. HOC had been in breach of contract and/or duty. Neither of the defendants had acted reasonably, and so they could not obtain relief under s 61 of the Trustee Act 1925. They had to bear equal responsibility. 

Immigration – Leave to enter as child of refugee – Validity of application. Court of Session: Granting the prayer of a judicial review petition brought by the adopted daughters of a refugee, who applied for entry clearance to join him in the UK and whose application, presented as 'applications for family reunion in terms of para 352D of the Immigration Rules', was rejected without its merits being considered, an Entry Clearance Officer concluding it was not properly made under para 352D, the court held that the petitioner's application for leave to enter was 'made under' para 352D of the Immigration Rules and therefore it was fee exempt and it ought to have been considered on its merits.