Latest Cases

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Latvia to face prosecution for four thefts alleged to have been committed in 2007. In particular, it rejected the submission that he should have been discharged because the issue of his surrender was res judicata on account of his discharge in Scotland in extradition proceedings for substantially the same matters, as the principle of res judicata had no application in extradition proceedings. 

Mohidin v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis & others 

Customs and excise – Duties. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) ruled on an appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) in which the FTT had allowed the taxpayer company's appeal against an alleged customs debt owed to the Revenue. The tribunal held that the FTT had erred by refusing to grant the Revenue's application for permission to amend its response to the taxpayer's appeal but, that in all other respects, the appeal would be dismissed. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Human trafficking – Mutual corroboration – Sentencing. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals against conviction and sentence by an appellant who was found guilty of eight offences of human trafficking, the court rejected contentions that the sheriff misdirected jury in relation to mutual corroboration in directing them that there was a legal sufficiency and that his use of the word 'rule' on twelve occasions, when describing mutual corroboration, amounted to a misdirection; furthermore it held that only a custodial sentence could have been regarded as appropriate and that the sheriff's selection of 3 years' imprisonment could not be described as excessive. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Chancery Division dismissed an application by the claimant company, Marussia Communications Ireland Ltd, for summary judgment in a case concerning the alleged breach of the claimant's trade mark in the use of the name of its car by the defendants' Formula One team. Although the evidence came nowhere near suggesting that the claimant had consented to the defendants using the name, issues concerning art 9.1 of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark would have to be determined at trial. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning art 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between Sparkasse Allgäu and the Kempten tax office, Germany, concerning the refusal of that credit institution to disclose to the Kempten tax office information relating to the accounts held with its dependent branch established in Austria by persons who, at the time of their death, had their place of residence for tax purposes in Germany. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that following an assessment of the patient the presumption that the patient had the capacity to marry and engage in sexual relations as defined under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had not been displaced. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Chancery Division ruled that the claimant, Jack Wills Ltd, was entitled to recover 41% of the profits made by the defendant, House of Fraser (Stores) Ltd, from the sales of items in respect of which the defendant had been held liable for infringement of trade mark and passing off. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Clinical negligence. PSLA of £5,000. The claimant brought the claim on behalf of her late father after he suffered blood loss and death as result of a transaortic valve replacement procedure to remedy his aortic valve stenosis. The claimant alleged the deceased was never informed that the procedure was newly developed and still the subject of clinical trials, and that the defendants failed to care for him properly. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court held that the defendants were liable for infringement of two of the claimant BMW's trade marks and for passing off in the course of their business of repair and maintenance of cars. BMW had not consented to the defendants' use of the trade marks.