Latest Cases

Criminal law – Murder. The first appellant appealed against his conviction for murder and conspiracy to murder, and both appellants appealed against their sentences for life imprisonment, with eligibility for parole after 35 years. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appeals, held that there was no doubt that the first appellant's conviction had been the only proper verdict. Further, the sentence had been carefully reviewed by the Court of Appeal and it would not be right to interfere with its judgment. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union precluded legislation of a member state, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the context of the taxation of a group of companies, allowed a parent company, in the case of the acquisition of a holding in a resident company which became a member of such a group, to depreciate the goodwill up to a maximum of 50% of the purchase price of the holding, while such depreciation was prohibited in the case of the acquisition of a holding in a non-resident company. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his Extradition to Poland to face trial for five offences of fraud committed between May and July 2002. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the appellant's extradition was not barred by the passage of time, his rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights or the independent statutory proportionality bar, under s 21A of the Extradition Act 2003. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the father's appeal against an order dismissing his application for committal of the mother for breach of an order requiring her to return two of their teenage children to Spain. In the circumstances, it had not been established that the order had been wrong. 

European Union – State aids. The Court of Justice of the European Union allowed the appeal by the European Commission by which the Commission sought to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Andersen v Commission: T‑92/11, by which the General Court had annulled in part Commission Decision 2011/3/EU (concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner). However, the respective cross-appeals by Danske Statsbaner SV and Denmark which also sought to have the judgment under appeal set aside were dismissed. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division following a consideration of the correct procedure, gave an NHS Trust leave to apply under s 10(2)(b) of the Children Act 1989 for an order that the trust could apply seeking permission under the inherent jurisdiction of the court to perform urgent surgery of a serious nature on a boy despite the resistence of both J and his parents. The court granted permission for the treatment to go ahead as being in the boy's best interests. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 82 EC, deciding, among other things, that art 82 EC should be interpreted as meaning that, in order to fall within the scope of that article, the anti-competitive effect of a rebate scheme operated by a dominant undertaking had to be probable, there being no need to show that it was of a serious or appreciable nature. 

Land – Interest in land. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's claim and allowed the defendant's counterclaim in part, in a dispute as to the removal of a restriction on the sale of land, following the lending of money to the claimant by the defendant. The court held that, on the evidence, the Form RX1, which had led to a restriction being registered at the Land Registry, was effective, but that the defendant had lent sums that were much lower than those alleged in the counterclaim. 

Criminal evidence – Evidence of bad character. Three appeals against conviction, challenging decisions of the Court of Appeal of Bermuda, were heard together, as they raised similar questions concerning the admissibility and proper ambit of evidence as to the existence and practices of gangs, and the appellants' connections with them. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appellants' appeals, gave extensive guidance on the admissibility of gang evidence, in particular, when given by police officers. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The central issue was whether a judge had been right to have granted summary judgment striking down the first and third appellants' negligence claims against their solicitors, on the grounds that they had been issued more than three years after they had acquired the knowledge required for bringing an action for damages in respect of the relevant damage, within the meaning of s 14A(5) and (6) of the Limitation Act 1980. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in the circumstances, allowed the appellants' appeal and set aside the orders for summary judgment.