Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division granted an injunction to the claimant local authority to restrain the defendant from pursuing a course of conduct amounting to harassment. In so doing the court was sure that the defendant would fail to establish one of the statutory defences, under by s 1(3)(a) and (c) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as he could not satisfy the rationality test in making out his avowed purpose of preventing and detecting crime. 

Police – Powers. The complainants contended that the respondent National Crime Agency's authorisation for property interference and for the installation of covert listening devices at their premises was unlawfully obtained. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, in quashing the authorisation, held that the application for the authorisation had failed to disclose material information and the authorisation probably would not have been made or approved in the form it had been. 

European Union – Community institutions. The Court of Justice of the European Union set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in so far as the General Court had thereby accepted that the European Commission could refuse to ClientEarth, on the basis of a general presumption, full access to those of the studies at issue relating to the compatibility of the legislation of various member states with European Union environmental law. 

European Union – European arrest warrant (EAW). The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 15 and 17 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (on the European arrest warrant (EAW) and the surrender procedures between member states), as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA. The request had been made in the context of the execution, in Ireland, of a EAW issued by the magistrates' courts in Dungannon (United Kingdom) in respect of Mr Lanigan. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to the United States of America to face trial for 21 charges concerning the export of goods, including those capable of use in the development of chemical and biological weapons, from the US to Syria. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the dual criminality requirement had been met and extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with the appellant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Trust and trustee – Constructive trust. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant's claim, in a dispute over the purported exchange of a property in Leeds with one in Tehran. The court held that the claimant had made out his case for a constructive trust and/or proprietary estoppel, and the appropriate relief was to put the parties in the position that they would have been if the contract had been concluded. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant suffered with non-freezing cold injury to his feet sustained while engaged on exercises, with unsuitable footwear, during his employment with the defendant. He was awarded damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity and for future loss of earnings calculated by reference to the Ogden Tables. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal. The award for general damages was upheld but, while the finding that the claimant was disabled as a result of his injuries was correct, his loss of future earnings should not have been calculated by reference to the Ogden Tables and should have been calculated by reference to established common law principles. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the provisions of Council Directive (EC) 96/34 and Directive (EC) 2006/54 had to be interpreted as precluding national provisions under which a civil servant was not entitled to parental leave in a situation where his wife did not work or exercise any profession, unless it was considered that due to a serious illness or injury the wife was unable to meet the needs related to the upbringing of the child. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appellant doctor's appeal, held that the Fitness to Practise Panel of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service had been wrong to have taken into account the proven incidents of non-serious misconduct in determining whether her fitness to practise had been impaired and had been wrong to have found each of the four instances of serious misconduct proved. Therefore, it had been wrong to have found that the appellant's fitness to practise had been impaired and the sanction of conditional registration would be quashed. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Chancery Division held that, in all the circumstances, it had jurisdiction and it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to sanction cross-border schemes of arrangement in respect of the group, Van Gansewinkel Groep BV. The scheme creditors could be regarded as coming within the jurisdiction of the English court under art 8(1) of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 for the purposes of the exercise of the scheme jurisdiction in relation to them. The court further considered the proper approach, in practice, to applying for the sanction of schemes of arrangement where jurisdictional issues might be involved.