Latest Cases

Extradition – Private and family life. The judge's decision on art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and s 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 had been wrong in the very unusual circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders his extradition to the Netherlands serve a sentence imposed, on an appeal by the prosecutor, for an offence of armed robbery.

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The appellant's appeal against a decision of the Mauritian Court of Appeal failed. The proceedings concerned a written agreement for the sale of leasehold land, in circumstances where it had been necessary to obtain permission from the lessor for the transfer of the leasehold rights from the vendor to the purchaser. The Privy Council held that, among other things, the Mauritian Court of Appeal had been entitled to re-examine the facts upon a correct application of the relevant law, and had been entitled to conclude, that the sale agreement had lapsed by the time that the proceedings had been commenced.

Employment – Employee. The appellant executor of the estate of a former employee of the respondent appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, that the employee had not received different treatment at the hands of the respondent compared to a comparator employee in breach of s 4(d) of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. The Privy Council, dismissing the executor's appeal, held that the Court of Appeal was correct in its analysis that there was no difference in treatment between the two employees.

Family proceedings – Order in family proceedings. Notwithstanding that a child (aged 17) was demonstrably at grave risk of serious, and possibly fatal, harm from his alleged involvement in gang activity, the High Court did not have power, under its inherent jurisdiction and on the application of a local authority, to authorise the placement, in secure accommodation, of the child who was not 'looked after' by that authority, within the meaning of s 22(1) of the Children Act 1989, and whose parent with parental responsibility objected to that course of action. Accordingly, the Family Division dismissed the authority's application, holding that, in circumstances where there was no care order in force concerning the child and where the child was not a 'looked after' child, for the purposes of ChA 1989 s 25, the effect of the order sought by the authority would be to require the child to be removed from his mother's care and be accommodated by the authority; a course of action which, in the circumstances, was prohibited by ChA 1989 s 100(2)(b).

Contempt of court – Committal. While the court had demanded strict compliance with the procedural requirements for committal applications, that did not require slavish adherence to the technicalities, regardless of the justice of the case. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division authorised, to the extent necessary, alternative service of the claimant company's committal application against its former employee (concerning the alleged breach of an order for delivery up) and supporting evidence. The court further held that no injustice had been caused to the defendant by the claimant's failure to adduce its witness's evidence in the form of an affidavit. On the facts, the claimant's application was allowed, in part, and consideration would be given to what sanction should be imposed.

Local authority – Duty of care. The claimants' appeal against the dismissal of their claim against the defendant local authority failed. They had brought proceedings against the authority, alleging negligence in that it had breached its duties to protect them from abuse and anti-social behaviour from their neighbours. The Supreme Court held that the particulars of claim did not set out an arguable claim that the authority had owed the claimants a duty of care. Further, the authority was not liable on the basis of vicarious liability for the negligence of its employees.

Criminal law – Procedure. On its true construction, Condition 4 in s 1(6) of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, namely an offence or offences committed to any extent (whether directly or indirectly) as a result of, in connection with or in response to religious or political hostility of one person or group of persons towards another person or group of persons, included a member of the armed forces shooting a person he had suspected of being a member of the Irish Republican Army. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant former soldier's appeal against the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to issue a certificate pursuant to s 1 of that Act, directing that the appellant stand trial for attempted murder and attempting to cause grievous bodily harm by a judge sitting without a jury. The Court decided, among other things, that the DPP had acted within the powers conferred on him by the Act.

European Union – Consumer protection. In a preliminary ruling in proceedings between the applicant leasing company and the borrower concerning the invalidity of a loan agreement concluded by the parties, on account of the fact that the agreement did not refer to the exchange rate applied when the funds were advanced, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on the interpretation of arts 3(1), 4(2) and 6(1) of Directive (EEC) 93/13.

Easement – Right of way. Applying the relevant legal principles when considering use of an easement following a change in the dominant tenement, the Chancery Division held that the claimant's right of way, as owner of a coach house, over a track on a common owned by the defendants, extended to the claimant's proposed development which involved demolition of the coach house and the erection of four terraced houses. Consequently, the court granted the claimant's application for a declaration to that effect. The court further determined where the legal boundary between the parties' properties lay and also decided that the claimant had a right of drainage.

Injunction – Breach of injunction. There was no general principle that only in exceptional circumstances should a court grant an injunction where an alternative, specific statutory remedy was available or the court should not do so where breach could carry more severe sanctions than breach of a Public Spaces Protection Order, nor was there any basis for the argument that local authorities could not seek a remedy with more serious consequences in the event of a breach or that the court could not grant such a remedy if it considered it justified and proportionate so to do. Consequently, the Queens' Bench Division dismissed the 16th respondent's application for discharge of an injunction, which he had allegedly breached, made against persons unknown with a power of arrest attached, granted to Birmingham City Council to tackle the problem of car cruising.