Latest Cases

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to the Czech Republic on the basis that it would be an abuse of process. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the extradition process had not been abused. There was nothing to suggest that the injustice to the appellant of having been tried, convicted and sentenced in his absence on the erroneous premise that he had been a fugitive from justice had been the result of anything other than incompetence on the part of the Czech authorities. There was no material which suggested that they had been motivated by bad faith. 

Company – Winding up. The trial of a preliminary issue was ordered, concerning the priority to be given to the payment of certain charges owed to the respondent company for gas and electricity supplied to retail premises after companies in liquidation had entered into administration and after they had been vacated by the companies. The Companies Court held that liability under the deemed contracts was provable, pursuant to r 13.12(1)(b) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925, as a liability to which the companies had become subject after the date of administration by reason of an obligation incurred before that date. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant had invested in a fund operated by the defendant, a Gibraltar company, which had lost all its capital. The claimant brought a claim in negligence and breach of contract against the defendant and served the claim form, without permission, outside the jurisdiction under CPR 6.33(2)(b)(iii) and art 23 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001. The Commercial Court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the service of the claim where the claimant had a good arguable case that there had been a concluded agreement, within art 23 of the Regulation. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. Following the claimant Russian national's divorce from a British citizen, the defendant Secretary of State refused her further leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The claimant sought judicial review, relying on the fact that her former spouse had worked elsewhere in the European Union during their marriage. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State's decision had been Wednesbury unreasonable in failing to take into account that the claimant had been exercising rights as a family member under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for some of the period she had been in the UK. 

Contract – Memorandum or note. The parties contracted under a memorandum of understanding to work together in oil production in Iraq. A dispute arose and the claimant commenced proceedings. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, the claimant was entitled to recover debts accrued in a debt claim, but that sums stated to be recoverable in the event of breach in a memorandum of understanding were a penalty and unenforceable. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimants challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, affirming the refusal of planning permission for the construction of 23 affordable housing units. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had not unfairly used or misunderstood a written policy statement not considered in the hearing. Further, she had considered all relevant considerations in determining the weight to be attached to the availability of alternative sites. 

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant was convicted unanimously of ten counts of indecent assault and four counts of indecency with a child in respect of alleged historical abuse of his step-daughter. The issue on appeal, among other things, was whether the judge's summing up on the burden and standard of proof had been defective. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge's summing up had been defective and it could not be said that the verdicts would necessarily have been the same had an appropriate summing up been given. The conviction was quashed. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The claimant had instructed the defendant solicitors to act for her in purchasing a property. The solicitors did not advise her about restrictive covenants that affected the property. She carried out works in breach of the covenants and the neighbour with the benefit of the covenants complained. The claimant instructed the defendants to act for her. They did not, for some time, advise her to stop all works on the property but, when they did, she continued the works and the neighbour took out an injunction. The Recorder found the defendant had failed to make clear that the works had to stop and that, had the claimant known of the covenants, she would not have gone ahead with the purchase. Damages were awarded. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Recorder had erred in finding that the bringing of the injunction proceedings had been caused by the defendant's negligence, but that his conclusion that the claimant would not have gone ahead with the purchase had been correct. The appeal against the calculation of damages was successful in part. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. The claimant was awarded £6,600 in general damages. She suffered fractures to her mid right ribs, soft tissue injuries to her neck, shoulders and jaw. Rib fractures resolved after four months, neck injury resolved after five months, shoulder injury resolved after three months. The swelling to the claimant's jaw resolved after two weeks and the associated pain and tenderness resolved after four months. 

Unfair Dismissal – Constructive Dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) in dismissing the employee's appeal against the employment tribunal's rejection of her claims for constructive unfair dismissal and of detriments on the grounds of protected disclosures and whistle-blowing, decided that the tribunal had not erred in law and had adequately dealt with the question of alleged detriments and had properly set out its reasoning.