Latest Cases

Agreement – Written agreement. The Chancery Division considered the claimant's claim for payment of £12m and the transfer of property into her name. It held that an agreement between the claimant and the defendant, who was the son of the former Saudi King, to that effect had been valid. 

Arbitration – Arbitrator. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's application, under s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, challenging an award on jurisdiction. It held, among other things, that there was a valid arbitration provision and there had been neither an agreed abandonment of arbitration nor a tacit abandonment to be inferred from the conduct or lack of conduct of the defendant. 

Practice – Transfer of proceedings from or to the Technology and Construction Court. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claimant's application to transfer his claim brought against the defendant in the Central London County Court (Technology and Construction List), into the present court. It was not appropriate for the low-value claim to be transferred. 

Immigration – Detention. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claim by the claimant that he was entitled to damages following detention for false imprisonment arising out of detention by the defendant at an Immigration Removal Centre. In so doing, he found that the defendant had breached his own rules in in deciding to maintain detention despite a report being made under rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules; SI 2001/238. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court, in allowing the claimant non-Arab Darfuri's claim for judicial review, held that it was beyond belief how anyone could possibly reasonably have believed that there had been very exceptional circumstances for the claimant's immigration detention. Further, the test for the purpose of certification of her human rights claim as clearly unfounded had clearly not been met, as the arguable real risk of refoulement had not been taken into account. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Judge's charge – Mixed statements by accused. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of robbery and murder, attempting to defeat the ends of justice and possessing heroin, who contended that the trial judge had misdirected the jury as to the significance as evidence of the exculpatory parts of mixed statements he had made, the court held that the jury were misdirected, they were then correctly directed, at least in relation to one statement, but immediately thereafter again misdirected in a fundamental respect, and the misdirection had led to a miscarriage of justice. 

Criminal law – Double jeopardy. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was charged with sodomy in relation to an 11-year old complainer, having been acquitted in 2009 of a charge that, between the same dates and at the same place, he used lewd, indecent and libidinous practices towards the same complainer, and whose plea in bar of trial founding on s 7 of the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 was repelled, the court held that the act now charged (sodomy) did not arise out of 'the same, or largely the same, acts' as those lewd practices originally libelled: the single occasion act of sodomy was not inextricably linked to the various acts of touching libelled in the earlier indictment. 

European Union – Contract. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal brought by the European Commission, by which the Commission had sought to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in ANKO v Commission: T-117/12, by which the General Court had ordered the Commission to pay to ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias certain sums, plus interest, the payment of which had been suspended on the basis of Section II.5(3)(d) of the general terms and conditions included in Annex II to the subsidy contracts relating to certain projects. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland for one offence because the 'dual criminality' test had not been satisfied, but dismissed his appeal with respect to the second offence, which was equivalent to the English offence of theft. It further rejected the appellant's appeal based on art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Practice – Payment into court. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendants' appeal, held that the common law position, that a defence of tender could not be set up in answer to a claim for unliquidated damages, had not been altered by the CPR.