Latest Cases

Immigration – Asylum – Fresh claim. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a failed Iraqi asylum seeker challenging a decision refusing to treat his further submissions as a fresh claim, the court, inter alia, rejected contentions that the decision-maker had taken an irrelevant matter into account, had failed to consider that another immigration judge might depart from country guidance, had provided no proper analysis of the new material, and had failed to apply anxious scrutiny. 

Criminal Law – Importation of prohibited goods. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of six years' imprisonment for conspiracy to evade a prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug of Class A, contrary to s 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, had been unduly lenient. Despite the offender's limited involvement in the conspiracy, the judge ought to have scaled up the sentence to reflect the massive quantities involved within the operation. The offender's sentence would be quashed and substituted for a sentence of eleven years' imprisonment. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders of a district judge for his extradition to Poland to stand trial for fraud, on the basis that it would be oppressive, by reason of his chronic and untreated pseudoexfoliation glaucoma. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, on the evidence that had not been before the judge, it would be oppressive by reason of the appellant's medical condition to order his extradition. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to Lithuania to stand trial for unlawful imprisonment and a public order offence. He contended that his extradition was barred by s 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, as he posed a real and immediate risk of suicide. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that there had been no evidence to show that the Lithuanian authorities would not be aware of and would not comply with their obligations, which were to ensure the continued safety of the appellant. 

Damages – Assessment. The defendant was the sole proprietor of a silver business at the London Silver Vaults. The claimant purchased, through the defendant, a large quantity of silver for investment. The claimant demanded delivery of the silver by a certain date, but only some of the silver was delivered. The claimant brought an action, seeking damages for conversion. Judgment was entered in default of acknowledgement of service. The Commercial Court held that the claimant was entitled to recover damages of £406,760.33, based on the fall in value of the silver eventually delivered to it. 

Company – Administration. The defendant appealed against the judge's order that the claimant administrators be permitted to sell the assets of a company, which were subject to a fixed charge security held by the defendant, as if they were not subject to that security. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that judge had approached the matter correctly, had properly taken into account the matters to which he had been bound to have regard and had come to a conclusion which had fallen well within the bounds of a reasonable exercise of his discretion. 

Elections – Local government. The petitioners had issued an election petition that sought to declare void the mayoral elections that had been held in Tower Hamlets. The petitioners applied to have the election court held outside the borough because, they submitted, there had been widespread intimidation of electors who did not support the successful candidate, including harassment of one of the petitioners, because witnesses were likely to be subjected to intimidation and because any venue in the borough would be surrounded by large groups of supporters for the successful candidate, as had been the case during the election. The Queen's Bench Division held that there were no special circumstances that justified fixing the place of trial outside the borough where the Commissioner who heard the petition had the power to discuss security with the police and could move the venue at any time, to another one within the borough, if he felt that it had become inappropriate. 

Company – Director. The defendants committed a number of offences, including fraud, connected to the retention of deposit money by a letting company. They were found criminally responsible, but the court declined to make an order for disqualification. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills applied for an order disqualifying the defendants, but the Chancery Division held that it was not appropriate to make such an order and was unfair that the defendants should be exposed to the same claim on two occasions. 

Landlord and tenant – Assignment of lease. The Chancery Division considered the construction of assignment provisions in leases entered into by companies in the Hilton Group of companies and the effect of the Landlord and Tenants (Covenants) Act 1995. The court held that the claimants were entitled to the declaratory relief sought. 

Contract – Construction. The parents' children attended the claimant school which was a fee paying school. When the parents failed to pay certain fees, the school brought an action for payment of a term's fees. The parents brought a defence and counterclaim alleging that the school was not entitled to recover the unpaid fees because it had acted in fundamental breach of contract, entitling the parents to rescind and/or repudiate the contract. The parents also made allegations of racial discrimination and bullying. The Queen's Bench Division held that on he facts and evidence, the school had not acted in breach of any of its three contracts. The defence and counterclaim had therefore had to fail.