Latest Cases

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of approximately nine months for offences of robbery, criminal damage and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. As the appellant had served the remainder of his sentence on remand, it would be disproportionate to his rights under art 8 of the Convention to order his extradition. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division refused an application made by the paternal uncle of two young children for leave to revoke placement orders. The court held that there probably had been a change of circumstances, but, in considering the second stage, namely, whether the discretion to grant leave should be exercised, in all the circumstances, the application would be refused. 

Criminal law – Trial. The Divisional Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Crown Court's ruling that no member of the public could make notes of the proceedings without permission. The default position was that those who attended public court hearings should be free to make notes of what occurred and the paramount question for a judge, if considering withdrawing that liberty, was whether the note-taking in question would be likely to interfere with the proper administration of justice. 

Personal Injury: o Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. PSLA of £11,000 with total damages of £12,500 awarded. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. PSLA of £1,100 awarded. 

Creation of trust – Declaration of trust. The Chancery Division allowed the claimants' application to make final an interim charging order over property owned by the first defendant, whose election as the mayor of Tower Hamlets had been declared void. The court held that the Stack approach to the purchase of a domestic property would not apply when property had been brought for letting. Among other things, the proper approach when considering the property was to follow the classic resulting trust doctrine by looking at the actual contributions to the purchase price. On the evidence, the second defendant, who was R's wife, had not made out her case that she had made substantial contributions to the purchase price, and it followed that she could not establish a resulting trust. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union upheld the plea by Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (Meica), alleging infringement of art 8(3) of Regulation (EC) 216/96 in the context of opposition proceedings between Meica and Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA, regarding the application by the latter for registration of a figurative sign 'STICK MiniMINI Beretta' as a Community trade mark. Consequently, the General Court partially annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), in so far as it had rejected Meica's submissions concerning the services in Class 43 of the Nice Agreement. 

Pleading – Amendment. The Queen's Bench Division refused the claimants' application for permission to amend their particulars of claim in their claim alleging defamation and malicious falsehood for reasons including that the proposed amendments could not stand in their present form, included bare assertions, 'smuggles in' a new allegation which needed to be made good by a direct pleading to the effect, if there was evidence to justify it and served no useful purpose. 

Landlord and tenant – Opposition to grant of new tenancy of business premises. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed a landlord's appeal in respect of a declaration that he had not established his entitlement to rely on s 30(1)(g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and an order that a new tenancy of business premises should be granted by the landlord to the tenant. The case was remitted for a re-trial before a different judge. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Privy Council allowed an appeal arising out foreign insolvency proceedings concerning a company owned by Bernard Madoff. The trustee in bankruptcy of the company had sought to enforce a default judgment obtained in New York against the appellant company in Gibraltar, where it held substantial assets. The trustee's application for summary judgment was allowed in part by the Court of Appeal of Gibraltar, which ruled that the trustee's claim that the appellant had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the state of New York had a reasonable prospect of success. The Privy Council, allowing the appellant's appeal, held that, on the facts, there was no basis for the assertion that there was a contractual term that the appellant had submitted to the New York jurisdiction. It held that an agreement to submit to a jurisdiction of a foreign court did not have to be contractual in nature and might be implied as a matter of fact, or by law. In any event, even if a jurisdiction agreement was to be implied, it would not apply to the present avoidance proceedings.