Latest Cases

Criminal law – Misconduct in public office. It was a proper case to issue a summons against Boris Johnson for three offences alleging misconduct in a public office while he was Mayor of London and a member of Parliament by allegedly repeatedly lying and misleading the British public as to the cost of EU membership, expressly stating, endorsing or inferring that the cost of EU membership was £350 million per week. The Magistrates' Court held that there was sufficient to establish prima facie evidence of an issue to be determined at trial of the elements of misconduct in a public office and the application was not vexatious.

Extradition – Delay. Although the judge should not have said that the appellant had only himself to blame for the delay, when he there had been an unexplained period of delay of over three years, it could not be concluded that, if the judge had decided the question in the way he ought to have done, he would have been required to order the appellant's discharge. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland for taking part in the beating up of a victim, as a result of which he suffered from bodily injuries.

Damages – Personal injuries. The claimant would be awarded a total of £1,112,390.70 for complex post-traumatic stress disorder as a direct result of the abuse that he suffered at the hands of the first defendant, for which the second defendant local authority was vicariously liable. In particular, the Queen's Bench Division held that the appropriate amount for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, to include aggravated damages, would be in the sum of £85,000.

Immigration – Leave to remain. Paragraph 46-SD(h)(i) of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules, in so far as it required submission of real time information submissions made to the Revenue and Customs Commissioners, was not unreasonable and, thereby, unlawful. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant Indian national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant, further rejected her contention that the Secretary of State's failure to exercise residual discretion in favour of the claimant, or to consider exercising that discretion, was unlawful.

Practice – Early neutral evaluation. The court could not order that there be an early neutral evaluation hearing or financial dispute resolution hearing (and by extension give directions for it) in the absence of consent, pursuant to CPR 3.1(2)(m). Accordingly, the Family Court dismissed the claimant widow's application in the course of her proceedings for provision out of the estate of her late husband against the defendant step-son, co-executor and beneficiary.

Company – Director. The respondent former director of the first applicant company in liquidation had knowingly been a party to the use of the company for the purposes of defrauding a bankrupt's creditors and had been in breach of her duties as director. The Chancery Division, in allowing the company's liquidator claim against the respondent, further held that ss 21 and 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 disapplied the primary limitation period in relation to a loan, whether that breach was characterised as fraudulent or negligent.

Extradition – Discharge. The further time which the appellant had spent in custody was fresh evidence available to show that his appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland ought to be allowed. Accordingly, the Administrative Court would make an order the following Friday, which would be one day short of the whole sentence period, directing the discharge of the appellant.

Landlord and tenant – Service charges. It was accepted that the power of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to review its own decisions was limited to doing so on a point of law which could provide a ground of appeal under s 11 of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) so held, among other things, in the course of hearing the appellant landlord's appeal and the respondent leaseholders' cross-appeal concerning the leaseholders' liability to contribute towards service charges as set out in three invoices in relation to certain calendar years. The appeal was allowed to the extent of £70,902 which had been properly included in the service charge for 2014. However, the appeal in respect of the balance of the sum of £557,557, as set out in Invoices 1 and 2, was dismissed. The cross-appeal was allowed except to the extent of the same sum of £70,902.

Company – Share purchase agreement. The first defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claimant companies' claim for damages for, among other things, deceit in relation to the alleged misrepresentation of the financial circumstances of the first claimant company following the entry by the second claimant company into a share purchase agreement for the purchase of the first claimant's holding company. Consequently, the Commercial Court granted summary judgment on the first claimant's claim for damages against the first defendant. However, the court was not prepared to decide any other points on a summary basis, including the first defendant's counterclaim and additional claim.

European Union – Trade marks. The Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office had been right to decide that there had been a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public between the figurative sign 'SkyPrivate' sought to be registered by the applicant and the earlier UK word mark 'SKY', registered by the intervener company, Sky Ltd, established in the UK. Accordingly, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the applicant's application for annulment of the Board's decision to uphold the intervener's opposition to registration of the applicant's mark.