Latest Cases

Negligence – Cause of action. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant had failed to establish liability on the part of the defendant bank for any exposure to asbestos during the course of her employment from 1978 to 1986 and therefore her claim for personal injury for mesothelioma against the defendant failed. 

Police – Investigation of crime. On references by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, pursuant to s 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the defendants' convictions for murder and manslaughter had not been rendered unsafe. Amongst other things, the new evidence, which had not been available at the time of the defendants' trials, had not, in the circumstances, impacted upon the safety of the convictions. 

Prison – Prisoner. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant determinate sentence prisoner's application for judicial review of the defendant Parole Board's decision not to direct his re-release following his recall to prison, held, among other things, that it could not arguably be said that the Parole Board had applied the wrong test. 

European Union – Customs duties. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of r 3(b) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007. The request had been made in proceedings between VAD BVBA and its managing director and Belgium, concerning the tariff classification of combined video-audio systems and loudspeakers. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the decision of a district judge to order his extradition to Spain, pursuant to a European arrest warrant, to face a charge of rape. The court held that the district judge's conclusion that the delay by the Spanish Judicial Authority did not prevent the appellant from having a fair trial and he had correctly concluded in respect of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights that the public interests in extradition outweighed the factors against it and he had rightly concluded that the appellant had failed to establish abuse of process. 

Company – Insolvency. The Chancery Division dismissed an application seeking declarations that the appointment of the first three respondents as joint administrators of a company had been a nullity because of an alleged prior floating charge in favour of another company. The court allowed a cross-application by the respondents, the joint administrators and Nationwide Building society, to strike out the substantive application having found that Nationwide's predecessor (Derbyshire), had had a qualifying floating charge for the purposes of s 251 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which Nationwide had acquired and that the company had never acquired the hotel in question and its adjoining land otherwise than subject to the terms of Derbyshire's legal charge and debenture. Accordingly, nothing had had the effect of depriving the Derbyshire debenture of its status of a floating charge as created and Nationwide had not been not precluded from making the appointment of the joint administrators. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union allowed the appeal by HeidelbergCement AG in which that company sought to set aside a judgment of the General Court of the European Union in HedelbergCement v Commission: T-302/11, by which the General Court had dismissed its action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2361 final of 30 March 2011 relating to a proceeding under art 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court decided that, on the evidence it was in the two children's best interests to be removed from the jurisdiction to Malaysia with the mother on a temporary basis for a family wedding. Although the risk of abduction was low, the consequence of a breach was significant and to that end the mother was to lodge a surety of £5000 with the court to be made available to the father for his legal costs should she fail to return. 

Judicial review – Legal aid – Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. Court of Session: Granting a judicial review petition by a petitioner, who was a complainer in criminal proceedings, and whose application for legal aid to enable her to be represented at a hearing before the sheriff of the accused's petition for recovery of her medical records was refused by the Scottish Ministers, who argued that she had no right to be heard or represented before the sheriff on that application, the court held that a haver and any person whose rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights might be infringed by an order for recovery of medical records and other sensitive documents must have the application for recovery intimated to them and be given the opportunity to be heard in opposition to the application before an order was made or, at least, before the documents were handed over to the party seeking them: accordingly the court reduced the Scottish Ministers' decision, founded as it was on an error of law as to the complainer's right to be heard, leaving the ministers to make a new decision on a correct legal basis. 

Criminal procedure – Disclosure – Prosecutor's duty to disclose information. Sheriff Court: In applications to the court for a ruling on disclosure by three accused who had pled not guilty to a summary complaint containing 16 charges mostly alleging contraventions of road traffic and regulatory legislation relevant to dealing in motor vehicles, the court concluded that a substantial amount of information sought by the defence was within the scope of the prosecutor's duty to disclose information.