Latest Cases

Company – Director. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on an appeal against findings that the appellants had dishonestly assisted A, the 100% owner and sole director of the respondent company, to breach his duties to that company under s 175 of the Companies Act 2006, and had dishonestly assisted A in misapplying £1.25m of the company's money. It dismissed the appeal, save that the judge's conclusion that the appellants were liable to compensate the company for a particular sum of £500,000, as part of the misapplication claim, would be reversed. 

Shipping – Contract. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that arbitrators had not erred in construing a shipbuilding contract to mean that a 12 month time-bar provision applied so as to exclude all claims not notified within the requisite notice period, including the claimant's claim. Bifurcation of an article in the contract so as to create two category of claims, as contended by the claimant, was wholly artificial. The court further held that s 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 applied to a shipbuilding contract in any case where goods had been ordered for their normal purpose. 

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. 

Criminal evidence – New and compelling evidence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that new DNA evidence, available at the time of the original police investigation, but not forensically examined until two years after the defendant's acquittal for murder, had been reliable, substantial and highly probative evidence. In the light of that new evidence, it had been in the interests of justice for the defendant's acquittal to be quashed and for a retrial, upon an indictment alleging the murder, to be ordered. 

Criminal procedure – Sheriff's charge – Theft – Mens rea. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of the theft of a substantial amount of stock from the company of which he was the managing director, the court rejected contentions that the sheriff had failed to give adequate directions on the mens rea of theft and had failed to direct the jury appropriately not to speculate. 

Immigration – Deportation – Certification of human rights claim. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition by a Pakistani citizen who had been notified of his liability to deportation following convictions for sexual offences against children and who sought reduction of a decision to certify his human rights claim, the court held that although the certification process did not comply with the requirements of procedural fairness and it was not clear from her decision letter that the respondent carried out the separate proportionality assessment in respect of certification which she had to carry out, reduction would be pointless because there was no doubt the respondent would reach the same decision if she followed the correct approach. 

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. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant Secretary of State's appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT), allowing the respondent Jamaican national's appeal against a deportation order. The UT had not followed the relevant authorities as to the weight to be given to the public interest in deportation. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld a finding by the employment tribunal (the tribunal) that the employee had not suffered direct discrimination and harassment because of/related to her religion or belief. The tribunal had concluded that the employee had not been subjected to disciplinary process or sanction because she had manifested her religious belief in voluntary and consensual exchanges with a colleague, but because she had subjected a subordinate to unwanted and unwelcome conduct. The treatment of which the employee had complained was because of, and related to, those inappropriate actions; not any legitimate manifestation of her belief. The tribunal had approached its task correctly and the appeal could not stand given the tribunal's factual findings. 

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.