Latest Cases

Company – Administration-Director. The Chancery Division ruled on the joint liquidators' application for a declaration of wrongful trading that, although the directors of a company in administration ought to have concluded by a certain date that there was no reasonable prospect of the company avoiding insolvent liquidation, continued trading had not caused loss to the company overall or worsen the position of the creditors as a whole. Accordingly, no declaration was made under s 214(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986, requiring the directors to make any contribution to the assets of the company in respect of any losses said to have been caused to the company during the period of wrongful trading. 

Misrepresentation – Damages. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant company's claim in deceit in part. It held that a former employee of the defendant, D, had made a number of deceitfully high rental valuations for properties in a development. A number of communications between the parties had, generally, not created a break in the chain of causation. The claims were made out in the case of three out of the four groups in the proceedings. 

Criminal law – Indecency with child. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of 24 months' imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, for three specimen counts of indecency with a child, contrary to s 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960, had been unduly lenient. A judge had to arrive at the right sentence on the offences before her and to guard against any temptation, because of what had happened in the intervening period, to suspend the sentence. The sentence would be quashed and substituted for a total term of three years and six months' imprisonment. 

Extradition – Human Rights – Right to family life. Sheriff Court: Discharging a European Arrest Warrant in a case in which the German authorities sought the extradition of a Gambian national who was the mother of five children, one of whom was suffering from acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, to serve a 40-month prison sentence for drug trafficking, the court held that on balance the evidence led and the facts established revealed one of those genuinely rare and exceptional cases where the respondent's extradition to Germany would very likely, if ordered, have such a severe impact on the sick child as to constitute an unjustified and disproportionate interference with his and the respondent's right to a family life together and would accordingly be incompatible with their rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

European Union – Freedom to provide services. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and art 8 of Directive (EC) 98/34/, as amended by Directive (EC) 98/48. The request had been made in the context of two joined sets of criminal proceedings brought against Ms Ince, who was alleged to have acted as an intermediary, without the authorisation of the competent authority, in sporting bets within the territory of the state of Bavaria. 

European Union – Action for annulment. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action by Italian International Film Srl (IIFS) for annulment of the decision rejecting the application by IIFS for a grant for the film 'Only God Forgives' following call for proposals EACEA/21/12 MEDIA 2007 — Support for the transnational distribution of European films — the 'Selective' scheme 2013, published by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency pursuant to Decision (EC) No 1718/2006. 

Criminal law – Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against conviction for having an offensive weapon, ruling that the act of bringing a cricket bat from his home into the street with an intention to use it to cause injury to those involved in an affray nearby fell within the ambit of s 1(4) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. Accordingly, the judge had not erred in rejecting a submission of no case to answer. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland to face trial for 56 offences, including fraud and forgery, said to have been committed between April 1999 and March 2001. The offences had been adequately particularised, extradition was not oppressive due to the passage of time, and the private life of the appellant and his family had been outweighed by the public interest in extradition. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his appeal against the respondent Secretary of State's decision to make a deportation order against him, rejected the submission that, having recognised the appellant as a refugee, it had not been open to the Secretary of State to deport him without having taken steps to 'cessate' his refugee status. There was no proper basis for the assertion that past refugee status (of itself) raised a presumption of ill-treatment under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights on return. 

Conflict of laws – Foreign proceedings. The Technology and Construction Court set aside a claim by the claimant English company for payment for services provided in connection with the operation of a mine in Sierra Leone