Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimants' applications for orders freezing assets allegedly held by the defendant companies, following a failed attempt to develop property in Georgia. The court held that there was no real evidence that the defendants held the assets claimed in the English and Welsh jurisdiction, and that it was not satisfied that any order it made would be effective to freeze assets that the defendants might have in Latvia. 

European Union – Regulations. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things that, the concept of 'economic activity' within the meaning of art 1(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, should be interpreted as meaning that it covered an activity, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, relating to the transport of stray dogs from one member state to another by a charitable association in order to hand over those dogs to persons who had undertaken to adopt them after payment by those persons of a sum covering, in principle, the costs incurred for that purpose by that association. 

European Union – Commercial agent. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 17(2) of Council Directive (EEC) 86/653 had to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing that a commercial agent was entitled, on termination of the agency contract, both to an indemnity for customers limited to a maximum of one year's remuneration and, if that indemnity did not cover all of the loss actually incurred, to the award of additional damages, provided that such legislation did not result in the agent being compensated twice for the loss of commission following termination of that contract 

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendants' appeals against their sentences for conspiracy to blackmail. The judge's starting point with respect to the first and second defendants had been too high, and the sentence for the third defendant had been too long given his limited involvement. 

Solicitor – Costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal of a solicitors' firm (Edmondson) against the dismissal of its claim against the respondent insurance company (Haven) in respect of Haven's conduct in settling on an inclusive basis personal injury claims directly with six clients with whom Edmondson had concluded conditional fee agreements, thereby depriving Edmondson of its costs. Haven had entered into each compromise agreement with notice of Edmondson's entitlement and the principle of equitable intervention required that Haven pay to Edmondson in each case the sums payable on settlement under the Pre-action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Spain to face trial for cannabis trafficking. In particular, the judge had not been wrong to refuse to adjourn the case under s 21B of the Extradition Act 2003, concerning requests for temporary transfer. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The Family Division held that it was in the child's best interest to be given leave to be removed to live in Paskistan to live with the mother despite the inevitable separation from the father. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant NHS trust's appeal against a finding that its surgeon had negligently caused injury to the claimant's left femoral nerve during the course of an operation. It held, among other things, that, on a close analysis of the evidence, the judge had been entitled to make the findings of fact that he had. 

Education – Higher education. The Administrative Court declared that the claimant's personal circumstances had been such as to require the Secretary of State to treat her case for a student loan under his interim policy as an exceptional one. However, the claimant had not been entitled to a loan under the policy and the interim policy was not unlawful, as in R (on the application of Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Just for Kids Law intervening) ([2015] All ER (D) 304 (Jul)). 

Public procurement – Competitive tendering procedure – 'Extreme urgency' exception – Damages. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion and cross-appeal in an action in which the pursuers alleged that the defenders had breached the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2006 when purchasing de-icing salt for roads over the severe weather winters of 2009/10 and 2010/11, and the defenders relied on extreme urgency to justify derogation from the tender procedures otherwise required, the court held that the commercial judge, who found in favour of the defenders, had not erred in his decisions on the merits, damages or expenses.