Latest Cases

Lien – Equitable lien. The appeal of the claimant solicitors' firm (Bott) against a finding that it was not entitled to an equitable lien failed. Bott carried out work processing claims against airlines, including the defendant company (Ryanair). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that where Bott simply wrote a letter of claim or assisted a client to complete the on-line form, and the claim was paid in response to the letter or the form, it was not entitled to an interest in the compensation that equity would protect. Further, Ryanair's process for compensation did not appear any more difficult to operate than Bott's method of receiving instructions.

Immigration – European Economic Area nationals. Regulation 8(2)(c) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1003, was limited to those who had joined an EEA national in the UK and continued to be dependent upon the EEA national. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellants' appeal, further held that the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had correctly found that there was no evidence that, if the second and third appellants were to leave the EU territories, their British citizen brother and cousin would be discouraged from exercising his rights to freedom of travel within those territories.

Extradition – Private and family life. There had been nothing new or surprising about Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski and other cases ([2016] 3 All ER 71), which had laid down essentially the same test as HH and another v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa; F-K v Polish Judicial Authority ([2012] 4 All ER 539). Accordingly, the Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve activated sentences of six months' imprisonment for breaking into an allotment shed and one year's imprisonment for stealing three aluminium work platforms worth £425.

Company – Winding up. The Chancery Division allowed an application by the company and the second applicant former director for the rescission of the winding up order. The company operated a hangar at Stansted Airport. There had been a material change in the circumstances, including that the court that had made the winding up order had had no evidence whatsoever of the reasons for the position the first applicant company had found itself in, or as to its ability to fund its business. Accordingly, rescission would be on the basis that the company appointed an additional director within three months of the order, to ensure that the problems of the past did not recur.

Immigration – Deportation. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had been wrong to find that the respondent Secretary of State had not been shown to have acted unlawfully in making a deportation order against the appellant Somali national. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, further held that the deportation order had been void ab initio and, therefore, had not invalidated the appellant's existing leave to remain, such that the appellant's application for indefinite leave to remain had to be determined.

Road traffic – Private hire vehicle. The display of the respondent Uber driver's vehicle on a smartphone App did not constitute an invitation to book the respondent's vehicle or an invitation to book an Uber vehicle in the vicinity, even if it were not the respondent's. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appellant local authority's appeal, further held that the judge had not erred in law in finding that the prosecution had not proved that the respondent had been plying for hire without a licence to do so, contrary to s 45 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. There was no presumption against a ward giving evidence in criminal or civil proceedings merely because those proceedings took place in another jurisdiction. In allowing an application for permission for a 12-year-old boy (who was a ward of the court) to travel to India to give evidence at his mother's trial for the alleged murder of his father, the Family Division ruled that a balancing exercise was necessary, and that the essential test was whether justice could be done to all the parties without further questioning of the child. The court held that, while giving evidence in his mother's criminal trial was not a risk-free course for the child, it did not outweigh the advantages to him of doing so. In so ruling, it considered the principles to be applied by the court when making a decision about a ward giving evidence in a trial outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

Company – Shareholder. The Commercial Court made rulings in two disputes concerning a site in Central Moscow, which was the subject of a shareholder agreement (the SHA). It held that, among other things, C, who was a defendant in both sets of proceedings, had been the true joint venture partner of OD, who was a party to the SHA.

European Union – European arrest warrant. Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA should be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which laid down a general and unconditional obligation to release a requested person arrested pursuant to a European arrest warrant as soon as a period of 90 days from that person's arrest had elapsed, where there was a very serious risk of that person absconding and that risk could not be reduced to an acceptable level by the imposition of appropriate measures. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in proceedings concerning the execution, in the Netherlands, of a European arrest warrant by the competent UK authorities in respect of a British national living in Spain who was suspected of having been involved, as a senior member of an organised crime group, in the importation, supply and sale of hard drugs, including 300 kg of cocaine.

Judiciary – Constitutional position. The Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago had erred in holding that s 110(3)(b) of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago permitted the appointment of retired judges to the Judicial and Legal Service Commission for Trinidad and Tobago (the JLSC). Accordingly, the Privy Council allowed the appellant's appeal from the Court of Appeal's decision and, among other things, declared that there could not be appointments to the JLSC under s 110(3)(b) of either serving judges or former judges in retirement.