Latest Cases

Costs – Employment tribunal. The employee's claims were struck out and the tribunal judge ordered that he should pay the whole of the employer's costs of the proceedings, to be assessed by the county court. The employee appealed, submitting that the judge had taken into account the substantial bill of costs incurred by the employer's in-house solicitor. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held, inter alia, that a receiving party could claim costs where he was legally represented by a qualified employee and that the definition within rule 38(3) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2004 had not placed any artificial restriction on such a claim. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the judge's decision to send his case to the Secretary of State for her to decide whether he should be extradited to Albania following his convictions there for premeditated murder and possession of firearms. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, followed the decision of the High Court of Justiciary Appeal Court in Kapri v Lord Advocate ([2014] HCJAC 33), which found that there was no evidence of judicial corruption in Albania, as it was not demonstrably wrong or substantially undermined by evidence not before that court. Further, there was no basis for the appellant to assert that he would not receive a re-trial, given the guarantee by the Albanian Ministry of Justice. 

Insurance – Broker. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's claim for breach of contract and/or negligence against the defendant insurance brokers in circumstances where the claimant's business was found to be grossly under-insured following a fire. 

Extradition – Discharge of fugitive. The Divisional Court, in allowing an appeal against a discharge of a European Arrest Warrant, held that, in the circumstances, the respondent had not demonstrated that extradition to Slovakia would be disproportionate under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, nor would it breach his rights under art 3 of the Convention. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. A number of agreements came into existence with a view to the making of a Spanish film entitled La Mula based upon a novel about the Spanish Civil War (the project). The first claimant was a well known film director and the second claimant was a partnership between him and his wife. The first and second defendants (also husband and wife) were shareholders in the fourth defendant, of which the fifth defendant was a wholly owned subsidiary. The sixth defendant was a company incorporated and wholly owned by the claimant. A dispute arose following the start of the project and the claimants brought proceedings in tort. A master allowed summary judgment against the claimants and refused to allow a proposed amendment which would have, in effect, changed the proceedings. He also made a costs order. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's application for permission to appeal as the master's decision had merely been a robust case management decision and in any event had been correct in law. 

Professional misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant pharmacist appealed against the decision of the respondent General Pharmaceutical Council's Fitness to Practise Committee (the FPC) to remove him from the Register of Pharmacists, as his fitness to practise was impaired. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the FPC's decision had not been wrong in its determination of the facts and there had been no procedural irregularity or unfairness in its proceedings. Further, the decision to remove the appellant from the Register of Pharmacists had been open to it and had not breached art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In a trademark infringement case relating to Community trademarks the claimant sought to re-amend its particulars of claim so as to include other member states in addition to the United Kingdom. The defendants had previously agreed to other amendments and opposed the re-amendment. The Chancery Division allowed the amendment to cover both the territory of the United Kingdom and/or France. 

Contract – Penalty. The claimant company sought a remedy against the defendants for breaches by the defendants of their restrictive covenants following the sale of a business by the defendants. The Queen's Bench Division held that in the context of the non-compete covenants the defendants had been in partial breach of the non-compete covenant and the claimant was entitled to judgment for damages to be assessed. 

Copyright – Ownership. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of a contract, the claimants did not own the copyrights in songs written by famous reggae musician, Bob Marley. The claim was dismissed. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) assessed the claimant asylum seeker as a minor, but the High Court in distinct judicial review proceedings found that he was not a minor. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) found error in the FTT's decisions and placed considerable weight on the High Court's decision in finding the claimant an adult. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the UT had not been bound by the High Court's decision, but had been entitled to attach considerable weight to it. However, the UT had not regarded itself as bound by the High Court's decision and had not fundamentally erred.