Latest Cases

European Union – Consumer protection. Council Directive (EEC) 93/13 did not preclude national legislation which prevented the court seised of the case from granting an application for the cancellation of a loan contract on the basis of the unfair nature of a term relating to the exchange difference, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, provided that a finding that terms in such an agreement were unfair would restore the legal and factual situation that the consumer would have been in had that unfair term not existed. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the allegedly unfair contractual term providing that the exchange rate applicable at the time of the advance of a loan denominated in a foreign currency was based on the buying rate practised by the bank whereas the exchange rate applicable at the time it was paid off was based on the selling rate.

Bank – Loan. The applicant's application to set aside a statutory demand failed. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, the respondent bank had not given assurances to G and his wife, so that the bank had represented that the debt would not be called in or that the whole debt would not be treated as being payable otherwise than on demand.

Trade mark – Infringement. The claimant vehicle company's application for summary judgment succeeded, in a dispute concerning the use of the words 'BMW' in the name of the first defendant telecommunications company. The Chancery Division held that the claimant's application had been made out with regard to its allegations regarding both passing off and infringement of its registered trade mark.

Extradition – Delay. The delay between 2010 and 2018 was delay for which the Polish authorities were responsible and it could properly attract the epithet 'culpable', which very significantly reduced the public interest in his extradition. Accordingly, the Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve an activated prison sentence of 1 year 11 months and 27 days in relation to a conviction of assault.

Extradition – Oppression. The mental health difficulties which the appellant had, which would be exacerbated by his extradition, were not of a gravity that was sufficient to outweigh the public interests. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve the whole of a sentence of one year's imprisonment imposed for an offence committed in 2005 where he obtained proximately £842, at current exchange rates, fraudulently through the use of a forged salary and employment certificate.

Criminal law – Murder. Whether or not the spirit of Code C of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was engaged by the fact of a prison officer's occupation, the circumstances in which the observations of the defendant's admission of murder had been made did not engage the Code or the need to obtain a signed copy of the comment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against conviction for murder, further held that the presence of a knife did not constitute an overwhelming supervening event.

Prison – Prison conditions. The judge had not erred in holding that the claimant serving prisoner's transfer to the managing challenging behaviour strategy unit did not amount to a 'removal from association', within r 45 of the Prison Rules. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal and the defendant Secretary of State's cross-appeal, further held that the judge had not erred in holding that the restrictions imposed on the claimant in the unit amounted to an interference with his right to respect for private life, under art 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Female genital mutilation (FGM) of girls under 18 was child abuse and, if attributable to parental behaviour, would comfortably fall within s 31(2) of the Children Act 1989, as being significant physical harm which would justify the making of a public law order. In deciding whether to make an FGM protection order under Sch 2 to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, the court had to have regard to all the circumstances. When viewed through the prism of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the health, safety, and well-being of the girl to be protected was the court's paramount consideration and the state was required to do that which was reasonable, in all the circumstances, to protect her from real and immediate risk of harm. The Family Division so ruled in circumstances where the applicant local authority, having previously been granted an out-of-hours FGM protection order in respect of an eight-year-old child (M), on a without notice application, later sought no order on its application. The court held that, on the facts, an FGM protection order was neither necessary, nor proportionate, where the risks to M had altered since the commencement of the proceedings. However, the court noted that, had the evidence been otherwise, it would have had no hesitation in making an FGM protection order until M reached the age of 18.

Police – Entitlement to injury award. The defendant Police Medical Appeal Board had misdirected itself on the appropriate legal approach to the question of whether a police officer's psychiatric injury had been received in 'execution of his duty' as required by reg 6 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/932, for the purposes of his entitlement to an injury on duty award pursuant to reg 11. Accordingly, the Administrative Court granted the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary's application for judicial review of the defendant's decision that the police officer's injury had been received in the execution of his duty.

Housing – Local authority. The second defendant charity's arrangements for the allocation of its social housing properties, which in effect precluded any persons who were not members of the Orthodox Jewish community from becoming tenants, were justified as proportionate under ss 158 and 193 of the Equality Act 2010. The Divisional Court further dismissed the claimants' challenge to the first defendant local housing authority's arrangements for the nomination of applicants to the properties, as once it was established that the second defendant was legally entitled to discriminate, the core of their case against it dissolved.