Latest Cases

Contract – Penalty. Having heard two appeals in two separate proceedings concerning the principles underlying the law relating to contractual penalty clauses (the penalty rule), the Supreme Court allowed the first appeal and dismissed the second appeal. The Court decided that none of the terms impugned on the two appeals contravened the penalty rule and further, that the charge in issue in the second appeal did not infringe the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, SI 1999/2083. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court allowed the claimant's challenge to the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of outline planning permission for some 400 dwellings, on the ground that he had not understood or taken into account the withdrawal of an interim policy, which had been a material consideration. 

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 – Defamation. The Queen's Bench Division refused the claimant permission to appeal against the order of a master dismissing both her defamation actions against Facebook UK and Google. The principal ground for dismissing the actions was a procedural on, namely that the claimant had sued the wrong defendant. 

Conflict of laws – Stay of proceedings. The Commercial Court dismissed the defendant English company's application for a stay and/or strike out of English proceedings commenced by the claimant French companies, as there had been no abuse of process, the claimants had a prospect of success and the English court had been first seised. It further granted the claimants permission to amend their claim form, as the defendant would not be prejudiced. 

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. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against the imposition of a compensation order and a confiscation order, following his conviction for fraud, where the figure representing the compensation order had also been included in the confiscation order. The court gave guidance on points to be borne in mind for future cases in the Crown Court where the prosecution sought both a compensation order and a confiscation order in circumstances where s 13(5) and (6) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were not applicable. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division, dismissed a contested application for permission to bring contempt proceedings when the alleged contemnor had already been tried and acquitted by a criminal court on the same facts. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by the Entry Clearance Officer against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) that had determined that a child adopted in Algeria was an 'extended family member' within the meaning of reg 8 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 21006/1003, and therefore entitled to be issued with an EEA family member permit to enter the United Kingdom. The court held that she was not a family member within the meaning of art 2 of Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 2004/38 and reg 7 of the Regulations and, consequently, she did not fall within art 3 of the Directive read together with reg 8 of the Regulations. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection, on an application by the Office of Public Guardian held that the patient's daughter, A, was not acting in the best interests of the patient under the lasting power of attorney (LPA), revoked the LPA and appointed A to act as the patient's deputy for property and affairs by virtue of s 58(1)(c) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.