Latest Cases

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve two years and six months' imprisonment for three offences of fraud. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, as it had not been established that the appellant had been served with two summonses, it was not established that his absence from the trial had been deliberate. The appellant's extradition was barred, by virtue of s 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, because he would not be entitled to a retrial if returned. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The second defendant applied to set aside an order requiring him to attend court to be examined, pursuant to CPR 71, in his capacity as an officer of the first defendant company, a judgment debtor of the claimant Deutsche Bank AG, and for him to produce certain documents. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that there was nothing in the authorities which justified the proposition that an order under CPR 71 could only be made on a non-resident foreigner if there were exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, there were exceptional circumstances and strong reasons for exercising the court's jurisdiction under CPR 71 where there had been significant asset transfers from the company and where it had failed to give proper disclosure regarding its assets. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The Chancery Division considered the scope of the powers of the trustees of the pension scheme of the charity Barnardo's. It held that, among other things, the trustees could not replace the Retail Prices Index, by which increases to payments under the scheme were calculated, so long as it remained an officially published index. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court held that the District judge had been correct in concluding that G, who had been charged in the United States with a number of serious sexual offences allegedly committed against an adolescent boy, would be at risk of being made subject to an order for civil commitment under the system which operated in California and that such an order would be a 'flagrant breach' of his rights under art 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things that art 5(2) of Directive (EC) 2003/4 should be interpreted as meaning that the charge for supplying a particular type of environmental information could not include any part of the cost of maintaining a database, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, used for that purpose by the public authority, but could include the overheads attributable to the time spent by the staff of the public authority on answering individual requests for information, properly taken into account in fixing the charge, provided that the total amount of the charge did not exceed a reasonable amount. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Commercial Court dismissed the second and third respondents' application to use funds in an account for the funding of the defence of the action against them despite the fact that there was a world wide freezing order in place against them. Both the evidence and the overall justice of the case demanded that result. 

Warranty – Breach. The Chancery Division dismissed both the claimants' claim and the defendants' counterclaim, where the first defendant, S, and the first claimant, M, had entered business together but had fallen out over the work done by S. The court held that S had not acted in breach of warranty, and that the claimants were not responsible for the torts alleged in the counterclaim. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The respondent applied for reconsideration of two orders that, first, discharged him as his daughter's deputy for property and affairs and, secondly, appointed a panel deputy to act in his place. The Court of Protection, in setting aside the orders and reinstating the respondent as his daughter's deputy for property and affairs, held that the respondent had not had behaved, or proposed to behave, in a way that contravened the authority conferred on him by the court, or was not in his daughter's best interests. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Chancery Division upheld the claimant's challenge under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and under art 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (Council Regulation 207/2009) to the invalidity of the first defendant's mark CRISTALINO JAUME SERRA in relation to, amongst other things, sparkling wines and wines. That decision was based on the fact the claimant's mark CRISTAL had a strong reputation in the United Kingdom and due to the similarity of the signs there would be confusion resulting in dilution and detriment to the distinctiveness of the mark.