Latest Cases

Feeds

Harrison and others v Shepherd Homes Ltd and others

Costs – Costs order. Issues arose regarding costs in relation to parties against whom the claim had been stayed. Having given consideration to the relevant principles in operation where there had been no determination of liability, the Technology and Construction Court held that in all the circumstances, the appropriate order as between the claimants and the relevant parties was that there should be no order as to costs except for certain discrete applications. 

Hufford v Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd

Statutory duty – Breach. Following a fire at his home in which a Samsung fridge freezer caught fire, the claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for breach of the statutory duty, under s 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and/or for negligence. The Technology and Construction Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the claimant had not discharged the burden of proving that there had been a defect in the product or the seat or origin of the fire. Further, the facts found had not provided the basis of a claim against the defendant in negligence. 

*Pathania v Adedeji and another (Bank of Scotland plc intervening)

Insolvency – Bankruptcy. The first defendant appealed against the entry of judgment against him on the basis that the claimant had failed to disclose his bankruptcy, which had occurred after the start of proceedings, but before judgment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the first defendant's appeal had been founded on the false premises that the bankruptcy order had immediately deprived the claimant of his cause of action. The first defendant had failed to show that the claimant's property had passed to a trustee in bankruptcy before judgment, and that the claimant had known that the official receiver had become trustee, that his estate had become vested in the official receiver and that that had been so before judgment had been entered. 

*Re Q (Children) (Fact finding hearing: Apparent judicial bias)

Practice – Civil litigation. In the course of private law family proceedings, the local authority intervened and issued care proceedings in relation to the two children. A case management hearing was held, at which the judge made critical comments of the mother and maternal grandmother and expressed doubt as to the veracity of their evidence. Following the fact finding hearing, the judge held that the mother's allegations were untrue and determined that the threshold criteria had been met. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, commenting on the role of the judge in such proceedings, allowed the mother's appeal on the ground that the judge had displayed apparent judicial bias. 

R v Midgley

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant was convicted of the alleged historical sexual abuse of his step-daughter. He appealed, relying on the fresh evidence of a man who also worked at the workshop where the abuse had allegedly occurred. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissing his appeal against conviction, held that the fresh evidence did not render the conviction unsafe, since the evidence did not establish that the assaults could not have taken place. 

*Re S (A child)(Child's Objections)

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. S, aged 15, left her mother in Mexico for London with the practical and financial assistance of her father. The mother applied for a summary return of S to Mexico, but S objected on the basis that she was not receiving a reasonable education in Mexico. The Family Division, in allowing the application, held that there had been a wrongful removal or retention. While taking account of S's views, the relevant considerations pointed clearly to S returning to Mexico. 

Public Prosecutor's Office Bavaria, Germany v Khan and other cases

Extradition – Extradition order. The judicial authority sought the defendants' extradition to face trial for fraud and tax evasion offences. The district judge discharged the first and second defendants' European arrest warrants (EAW), but ordered the third defendant's extradition. The judicial authority and third defendant appealed. The Administrative Court held that the EAWs failed to establish the defendants were 'accused persons', under s 2(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 and were insufficiently particular, under s 2(4)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the discharge of the first and second defendants' EAWs would be upheld and the third defendant's EAW would be discharged. 

*Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia Business Travel S.A.U. (formerly Travelplan S.A.U) of Spain

Shipping – Charterparty. A dispute arose about the alleged extending of a charterparty of a vessel. Considering anticipatory breach to have occurred, the owners sought to accept the breach and sold the vessel. By the time of the hearing, it was apparent that there was a significant difference in the value of the vessel when the owners sold it and November 2009, when the vessel would have been redelivered to owners had the charterers not been in breach of the charterparty. The Commercial Court held that the owners had not been required to give any credit for any benefit in realising the capital value of the vessel in October 2007, when the owners had arranged to sell it. 

*Bardoshi and another v Government of Albania

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. 

*Murray Group Holdings Ltd and others v Revenue and Customs Commisioners

Income tax – Emoluments from office or employment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) ruled upon issues arising out of a decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) concerning a number of assessments for PAYE and national insurance contributions served on the taxpayers in respect of certain sub-trusts established in the name of individual employees of companies in the Murray group (the taxpayers). The tribunal dismissed the taxpayers' appeals, save in respect of certain termination payments, which would be remitted to the FTT for the purpose, amongst other things, of proceeding as accords in relation to those payments. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

From Preston to Parliament

Chair of the Bar reports back

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases