Latest Cases

Practice – Payment into court. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendants' appeal, held that the common law position, that a defence of tender could not be set up in answer to a claim for unliquidated damages, had not been altered by the CPR. 

Conflict of laws – Stay of proceedings. The Commercial Court dismissed the defendant English company's application for a stay and/or strike out of English proceedings commenced by the claimant French companies, as there had been no abuse of process, the claimants had a prospect of success and the English court had been first seised. It further granted the claimants permission to amend their claim form, as the defendant would not be prejudiced. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland for one offence because the 'dual criminality' test had not been satisfied, but dismissed his appeal with respect to the second offence, which was equivalent to the English offence of theft. It further rejected the appellant's appeal based on art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division, dismissed a contested application for permission to bring contempt proceedings when the alleged contemnor had already been tried and acquitted by a criminal court on the same facts. 

Criminal law – Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the prosecution's appeal against a terminating ruling holding that, in a prosecution case based on DNA, there had been no case to answer. The depositing of the DNA in the course of the crime and the high statistical probability match with the defendant meant that there had been a very strong case against the defendant and plainly a case for him to answer. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by the Entry Clearance Officer against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) that had determined that a child adopted in Algeria was an 'extended family member' within the meaning of reg 8 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 21006/1003, and therefore entitled to be issued with an EEA family member permit to enter the United Kingdom. The court held that she was not a family member within the meaning of art 2 of Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 2004/38 and reg 7 of the Regulations and, consequently, she did not fall within art 3 of the Directive read together with reg 8 of the Regulations. 

Subrogation – Circumstances in which doctrine applicable. The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the appellant, M, against a finding that the respondent bank had been entitled to claim a charge over the freehold of her property by invoking a right to be subrogated to an unpaid vendor's lien over the freehold. It held that, among other things, M had been unjustly enriched at the expense of the bank, albeit not because of any fault of hers, and the bank had a valid unjust enrichment claim against M, which was properly reflected in its claim to be subrogated. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against the imposition of a compensation order and a confiscation order, following his conviction for fraud, where the figure representing the compensation order had also been included in the confiscation order. The court gave guidance on points to be borne in mind for future cases in the Crown Court where the prosecution sought both a compensation order and a confiscation order in circumstances where s 13(5) and (6) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were not applicable. 

Practice – Defamation. The Queen's Bench Division refused the claimant permission to appeal against the order of a master dismissing both her defamation actions against Facebook UK and Google. The principal ground for dismissing the actions was a procedural on, namely that the claimant had sued the wrong defendant. 

Contract – Agency agreement. The Mercantile Court ruled on a preliminary issue in a dispute between the defendant fashion company and the claimant sales agency. It held that it was possible to sever an invalid proviso from the contract between the parties, with the result that the claimant would be entitled to an indemnity, rather than compensation on the termination of its agency.