Latest Cases

Extradition – Extradition order. In the first case in which the reach of s 26(5) of the Extradition Act 2003 was considered, the Divisional Court gave guidance on its application. It then held that the applicant's appeal against his extradition to Hungary to serve 30 months' imprisonment was out of time. There had been no satisfactory explanation for the week's delay following the drafting of the notice of appeal and the delay had demonstrated that the applicant had not done everything reasonably possible to ensure that the notice had been lodged with the court as soon as it could have been. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Indian nationals were unlawfully detained and removed from the United Kingdom due to their immigration advisor's fraud. They issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the defendant Secretary of State's ongoing failure to consider action in their successful appeals. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, notwithstanding the defects in the Secretary of State's conduct, there was no proper basis upon which the claim for judicial review and damages could succeed, as there had been no properly pleaded public law claim. 

Freedom of information – Local government. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was dissatisfied with the response to his request for information relating to the process of revision of a local authority's disciplinary policy and applied to the Scottish Information Commissioner, who decided that all relevant information held by council had been identified and disclosed to him, the court held that the first ground of appeal raised no point of law and appeared to proceed on a misunderstanding of the role of the Commissioner and of the appeal court, a similar misconception appeared to run through the second ground of appeal, and the third ground, which appeared to be dependent on the first two grounds and identified no relevant point of law, was also without merit. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Silicium España Laboratorios, SL, (Silicium) against the decision of the First Chamber of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to invalidity proceedings between LLR-G5 Ltd and Silicium concerning the application by LLR-G5 Ltd for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the transfer to Silicium of the registration of the word sign 'LLRG5' which had been registered as a Community trade mark. 

Adoption – Practice. In circumstances where the child's paternal family sought leave to challenge an adoption order under s 47(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 200, the Family Court held that as the court had to have regard to the ability and willingness of any of the child's relatives to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child could develop, there were strong welfare reasons for granting the father leave to oppose the adoption application. 

Immigration – Asylum – Fresh claim. Court of Session: Granting a judicial review petition by a failed Sudanese asylum seeker, who challenged decisions refusing to treat his further submissions as a fresh claim, the court held that had the respondent Home Secretary's decision-maker properly applied the relevant test in terms of Immigration Rule 353, the respondent would have accepted the petitioner's further submissions as constituting a fresh claim for asylum. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd (Yoshida) against a decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the European Union (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning invalidity proceedings between Pi-Design AG and two other companies and Yoshida, regarding the application by the latter company for registration of a figurative sign depicting a two-dimensional representation of the handles of knives, as a Community trade mark. 

Adoption – Order. The applicant family members sought to remove two children to the United States of America where they hoped to adopt them. The Family Division held that the applicants were unable to bring themselves within s 84 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 for the purposes of obtaining parental responsibility and removing the children from the United Kingdom, as they did not and had never had a home in the UK. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In deciding that the child should go to live with the mother in France rather than in the United Kingdom, the Family Divison found that having regard to the welfare checklist, it was in the child's interests to live in France. Contact with the father could be maintained and the impact of her application being refused was likely to have a profound impact on the mother. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on: (i) the appeal by Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. (Del Monte) in Case C-293/13 P; (ii) the appeal by the European Commission in Case C-294/13 P; and (iii) the cross-appeals by Del Monte and another company, concerning the rejection by the General Court of the European Union of the action by Del Monte for annulment of the Commission's decision by which it had found that Del Monte had participated in a single and continuous infringement of art 81 EC for which it had imposed a substantial fine on Del Monte.