Latest Cases

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court gave guidance on the correct approach to European arrest warrants containing particulars of offences for which return was sought which stated that the sentences for other offences had been 'merged' in a variety of ways into the offences for which return was sought. In particular, it considered the warrants' validity with respect to the sufficiency of the particulars and specialty. 

Conflict of laws – Foreign judgment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a father's appeal against the mother's successful appeal against recognition and enforcement of an order obtained in Romania regarding their child, who was habitually resident in England. It was both a welfare and fundamental principle whether a child was to be heard and the question to be determined by the court, by reference to the child's age and understanding, was 'whether and if so how was the child to be heard'. As the child in the present case had not been given an opportunity to be heard in the Romanian proceedings, the judge had been correct to refuse recognition and enforcement of its order pursuant to art 23(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003. 

Legal aid – Entitlement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant Director of Legal Aid Casework's appeal in respect of the interpretation of para 21(4) of Sch 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and ruled on the proper interpretation of that provision. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court partially allowed the claimant company's challenge to the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing its appeals against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of its applications for development. The inspector had considered two points which had not been raised by the parties, which had resulted in unfairness to the claimant. 

Solicitor – Advice. The Chancery Division held that the defendant firm of solicitors, which had acted on behalf of the claimant in respect of the purchase of land, and for another individual in respect of the sub-sale of part of that land, was liable to the claimant in negligence concerning the sub-sale. The defendant's principal, by attaching the wrong plan to the TP1 form and filing of it, had diminished the value of the retained land. The defendant was also liable for negligent advice concerning the amount of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) to be paid, with the result that the claimant had overpaid the SDLT. The concession to SDLT in respect of transfers of land, under s 45 of the Finance Act 2003, had been available because there had been substantial performance of the contract to purchase the whole site and the sale of part of it at the same time. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the condition imposed by the defendant local planning authority on granting planning permission to the interested party for a new retail-led development. The condition required a legally binding commitment, it was enforceable and not too vague, it would achieve its purpose and material considerations had not been ignored. 

Negligence – Medical negligence. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's case for clinical negligence against the defendant NHS Trust following an operation on the claimant preformed by a surgeon employed by the Trust. The court held that the claimant had failed to prove that the defendant's servants or agents had acted in breach of their duty to her. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 13A(1)(g) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388. The request had been made in proceedings between Les Jardins de Jouvence SCRL and État belge concerning the refusal to allow that company to deduct input VAT in the context of building work which it had carried out for the purpose of operating a serviced residence. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court ruled that the claimant company was entitled to summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's award of in excess of £10m in respect of work at a power plant, which the claimant had been engaged by the defendant company to carry out. The defendant's challenge to the adjudicator's decision on the grounds that there had been breaches of natural justice and/or a wrongful delegation of the adjudicator's decision-making function, failed in every ground. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The Technology and Construction Court ruled on the first application, under reg 96 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102, to lift an automatic suspension on a contract granted following the defendant local authority's procurement tendering process for the provision of substance misuse treatment and harm reduction services for substance users in Sunderland. In dismissing the authority's application, the court held that the effect of reg 96 of the Regulations was that the court would determine an application to lift a suspension according to the same American Cyanamid principles that applied in determining applications for interim relief. There was a serious issue to be tried in the present case brought by an unsuccessful bidder and the balance of convenience laid in favour of maintaining the suspension.