Latest Cases

Extradition – Extradition order. The district judge had not been wrong to conclude that the appellant could not avail himself of s 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 because he was a fugitive from justice. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeals against orders for his extradition to the Czech Republic to serve sentences of 8 months' imprisonment and 12 months' imprisonment for dishonesty offences.

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Commercial Court considered the applicants' application for an order varying interim charging orders on two properties, to prevent dealing with them, including letting them on tenancies. An order would be made that each of the relevant freezing orders would be varied so as to include a provision that nothing in the orders would restrict the relevant applicant from granting a tenancy over the respective property for a term not to exceed 24 months and otherwise on terms agreed by the claimants or, in default of agreement, approved by the court.

European Union – Consumer protection. The assessment of whether, in a specific case, the means of distance communication allowed limited space or time to display the information, in accordance with art 8(4) of Directive (EU) 2011/83, should be carried out having regard to all of the technical features of the trader's marketing communication. In that regard, it fell to the national court to ascertain whether, having regard to the space and time occupied by the communication and the minimum size of the typeface which was appropriate for the average consumer targeted by that communication, all the information set out in art 6(1) of that directive could objectively be displayed within that communication. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in proceedings concerning the information on a consumer's right of withdrawal in a company's advertising in the form of an advertising brochure attached to various newspapers and magazines.

Immigration – Leave to remain. When the Secretary of State was expressly asked to exercise the discretion to grant leave to remain outside of the Immigration Rules, he was under a duty to do so. However, applying settled law to the facts, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant's appeal, in part, concerning the refusal of his application for further leave to remain in the UK and the decision to certify it as clearly unfounded. The court held that if the respondent Secretary of State had turned his mind to deal with the limited material the appellant had relied on in support of his application for leave to be granted outside of the Immigration Rules, it was inevitable that he would have come to the same conclusion. It further ruled that then Secretary of State had not misdirected himself as to the test for certification. Accordingly, the court held that the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had not erred in refusing permission to judicially review the Secretary of State's decision.

European Union – Freedom of movement. Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 should be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a member state, designated as 'responsible' within the meaning of that regulation, had notified its intention to withdraw from the EU in accordance with art 50 of the Treaty on the European Union did not oblige the determining member state to itself examine, under the discretionary clause set out in art 17(1), the application for protection at issue. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in proceedings between the applicants and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Ireland) and others concerning the decision to transfer them to the UK under that regulation.

Extradition – European arrest warrant. The appellant judicial authority succeeded in its appeal against a decision by a district judge, discharging the respondent from a European arrest warrant which sought his extradition to Germany to face a multi-limbed charge, alleging, among other things, kidnapping, racketeering and extortion. The Divisional Court held that the district judge had erred in concluding that the state authorities were culpable in respect of the delay, and that the period of the culpable delay was 20 years. It ruled that the district judge had failed properly to balance the various factors or to explain (adequately) why the delay had meant that the balance under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights fell on the side of not extraditing the respondent. The court held that the balance was overwhelmingly in favour of extradition. Accordingly, the order discharging the appellant was quashed and the case was remitted to the court below.

Arbitration – Agency. The majority of an arbitration tribunal had not erred in concluding that the claimant Brazilian special purpose vehicle (HPOR) had to forfeit pre- and post-termination remuneration in respect of an agency agreement entered into with the defendant companies, in circumstances where HPOR had been found to have breached its fiduciary duties to them. The Commercial Court ruled, among other things, that the present case concerned serious breaches and was exactly the kind of case where forfeiture of remuneration was appropriate. However, the court ruled that the majority of the tribunal had erred in apparently considering that the case concerned the remedy of an account of profits.

Patent – Infringement. The claimant companies' application for an order that they were entitled to receive confidential information via a confidentiality club succeeded. The Patents Court held that there was no case for imposing the restrictions on three lawyers in the confidentiality club that the defendants sought, and that the defendants had unreasonably withheld their consent to a professor being admitted to the confidentiality club. He would be admitted to it without the added restriction proposed by the defendants.

Copyright – Licence. The Chancery Division considered the powers of the Copyright Tribunal (the tribunal), in a dispute concerning four licences that the defendants held with the claimant organisations of the BBC. The court held that the Copyright Tribunal did not have jurisdiction under s 126 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to set the terms of licences of foreign copyrights but, nevertheless, it had the power in some circumstances to make an order in respect of the whole of a licence that covered both UK and foreign copyrights.

Value added tax – Zero-rating. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)(the FTT) to allow the taxpayer football club's appeal against the Revenue and Customs Commissioners' decision to issue the taxpayer a penalty in circumstances where the taxpayer had issued a zero-rated tax certificate in respect of construction works on a new clubhouse, would be upheld. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) held that although the FTT had erred in two aspects of its decision, its decision on the alternative issue as to whether the taxpayer had had a reasonable excuse for incorrectly issuing the certificate was unimpeachable.