Latest Cases

Costs – Assessment. The Technology and Construction Court held that the appropriate order was that the claimant should pay the defendant its costs, to be assessed on a standard basis, if not agreed, without any reduction for a failure on the part of the defendant to mediate. 

Judgment – Default of defence. The parties had issued cross-petitions to grant relief against unfairly prejudicial conduct of a company's affairs. During the proceedings, various interim orders were made, the effect of which was, ultimately, that judgment was entered against HRH Prince Abdulaziz Bin Mishal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (the Prince) in respect of a counterclaim, and his application to stay the judgment pending the trial of the petitions was refused. The Prince appealed against all of the interim orders made. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing his appeals, held, among other things, that the Prince could not rely on a protocol in Saudi Arabia that members of the royal family were prevented from signing court documents to avoid compliance with an order that he provide a signed witness statement. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants in a human rights claim regarding prison conditions in the United Kingdom had their cases struck out. They applied to have them reinstated. The Queen's Bench Division having regard to CPR 3.9 held that on the facts no relief from sanction would be granted in each of the five actions and they would consequently remain struck out. 

Warrant – Search warrant. A search and seizure warrant was issued and executed at the claimants' home and business address, and a large quantity of material was seized. They issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the warrant had been unlawfully issued and the documents wrongly taken on the basis of material non-disclosure. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, determined the applicable test for setting aside a warrant. Applying that test, it set aside the warrant, as there had been a material non-disclosure which might well have led the judge to issue a warrant which, had there been full candour, he would have refused to issue. 

The proceedings concerned a tendering process carried out by the respondent Common Services Agency in 2010 in respect of the provision of medical services to health authorities in Scotland. The appellant submitted that, among other things, the court below had erred in treating the reasonably well-informed and diligent tenderer (the RWIND tenderer) as a hypothetical construct, and in applying the RWIND tenderer standard according to the court's assessment of what a hypothetical RWIND tenderer would have done or thought. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the question could not be determined by evidence, as it depended on the application of a legal test rather than being a purely empirical enquiry. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. There were proceedings concerning a family of Turkish/Cypriot origin that had been broken apart as a result of allegations of extreme violence perpetrated by the father. In a fact finding hearing the Family Division held that the mother and daughters' allegations had been made out and the case had been proved on the balance of probabilities. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant was pregnant, a drug addict and HIV positive. She appealed against the district judge's order for her extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of 14 months' imprisonment for three offences of theft. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that a number of factors, coupled with the pregnancy of which the judge had been unaware, meant that the case fell into the category where the interference with rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was exceptionally serious so as to justify the refusal to extradite, as it would be disproportionate in the present case. 

Declaration – Jurisdiction. The claimant trust was authorised to bring claims on behalf of a large number of individuals in the United States who had allegedly suffered injury as a result of exposure to asbestos and asbestos related products, which had been supplied and/or distributed by the first defendant (T&N), an English company and its subsidiaries. The trust applied to the Commercial Court for declarations concerning the obligations of the reinsurers relating to the handling and settlement of any asbestos claims that the trust wished to advance against T&N. The Commercial Court held that the trust, as a third party and non-party to the relevant insurance contract, had no standing to claim such declaratory relief. 

Medical treatment – Withdrawal of treatment. The applicant NHS Foundation Trust sought authority to provide, in the exercise of its clinical discretion, life-sustaining treatment to the first respondent 52 year old man, TH, in a minimally conscious state. The Court of Protection held that the correct course was to adjourn the issue concerning the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration to provide for a structured clinical assessment. It considered TH's views and found that the weight to be given to those views and how they were to be balanced should await the conclusion of that assessment. 

Freedom of information – Information. The claimant complained to the first defendant Information Commissioner in respect of the second defendant local authority's failure to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the requested Excel format and to help him to formulate an appropriate request. The complaints and appeals were dismissed and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the authority had been required to provide the information in the requested format. Further, the authority had complied with its duty to help him to formulate an appropriate request.