Latest Cases

Practice – Extended civil restraint orders. There was no doubt that an extended civil restraint order should be made against the second claimant, as it was clear both from the conduct of the proceedings that the second claimant was the driving force behind the various claims and applications. The Queen's Bench Division further held that it had jurisdiction to make an extended civil restraint order against an individual who lacked capacity and that, as an exercise of discretion, it was appropriate that the extended civil restraint order be made against the first claimant, given the lack of protection otherwise afforded to the first defendant.

Costs – Offers to settle. The judge had been correct to find that the respondent's offer under CPR Pt 36 in relation both the appellant's claim and a proposed counterclaim was not invalid, since a proposed counterclaim should be treated as a claim, and a party could make an offer under Pt 36 at any time, including before the commencement of proceedings. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant's appeal against the judge's decision that the respondent had beaten its CPR Pt 36 offer and order that the appellant pay 75% of the respondent's costs of the proceedings.

Employment – Termination. The whistleblowing provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not apply extraterritorially to the respondent's whistleblowing detriment claims against the second and third appellant co-workers who had also been seconded to Kosovo by the first appellant Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellants' appeal against the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, finding that the Act did apply to the circumstances of the respondent's case.

Extradition – Dual criminality. The present was not a case which required the discharge of the appellant in respect of an offence which had failed to satisfy the requirements of dual criminality, although the judge should have decided the argument in a different way. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve the remaining 2 years, 5 months and 28 days for dangerous or careless driving, failing to stop or help a victim and driving in breach of a ban, and driving in breach of a ban.

Extradition – Private and family life. The rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, not only of the appellant and his wife, but of his son, outweighed any public and international interest in the extradition of the appellant to serve a sentence for offences committed almost 11 years ago. Accordingly, the Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence for two drug offences, quashed the order and ordered the appellant's discharge.

Extradition – European arrest warrant. The Court of Justice of the European Union, in a preliminary ruling, determined that the concept of an 'issuing judicial authority', within the meaning of art 6(1) of Framework Decision (JHA) 2002/584, had to be interpreted as not including public prosecutors' offices of a member state which were exposed to the risk of being subject, directly or indirectly, to directions or instructions in a specific case from the executive, such as a Minister for Justice, in connection with the adoption of a decision to issue a European arrest warrant.

Family proceedings – Child abduction. The parties' child had not been habitually resident in England and had remained habitually resident in the State of Israel, contrary to her mother's contention. The Family Division, in allowing the father's application for the child's summary return, further exercised its discretion to order the summary return of the child to the jurisdiction of Israel for the disputes concerning her welfare to be determined in the country of her habitual residence, although the father had consented to the child's removal.

Fatal accident – Damages. In proceedings against the defendant under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, the deceased's estate would be awarded £10,765.80, following a collision between his motorcycle and a vehicle driven by the defendant. The Queen's Bench Division further awarded the deceased's dependants, his three sons aged 22 and 12 at the deceased's death, £203,741.50, in proceedings under the Fatal Accident Act 1976.

Damages – Personal injuries. The claimant would be awarded a total of £1,112,390.70 for complex post-traumatic stress disorder as a direct result of the abuse that he suffered at the hands of the first defendant, for which the second defendant local authority was vicariously liable. In particular, the Queen's Bench Division held that the appropriate amount for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, to include aggravated damages, would be in the sum of £85,000.

Immigration – Leave to remain. Paragraph 46-SD(h)(i) of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules, in so far as it required submission of real time information submissions made to the Revenue and Customs Commissioners, was not unreasonable and, thereby, unlawful. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant Indian national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant, further rejected her contention that the Secretary of State's failure to exercise residual discretion in favour of the claimant, or to consider exercising that discretion, was unlawful.