Latest Cases

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of imprisonment for two years and six months for theft, criminal damage and burglary, committed in 2002 and 2003. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judicial authority was not in breach of the specialty provisions. Further, the appellant had been responsible for much of the delay and his extradition would not have exceptionally serious consequences for his family which outweighed the public interest in extradition. 

Criminal law – Trial. Criminal proceedings against the defendants on charges of rape, false imprisonment and assault by penetration had been stayed by the judge as an abuse of process of the court following serious failures in relation to disclosure. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in setting aside the stay held that, in the circumstances, the proceedings should continue. 

Shipping – Bill of lading. The claimants brought a claim against the defendants in respect of loss and damage caused to bags of rice shipped on a vessel by the first defendant carrier under bills of lading. The Commercial Court, in determining a preliminary issue, held that, construing the contracts of carriage as a whole and applying settled law, the charterparty incorporated in the bills of lading had imposed responsibility on the charterers or cargo interests for bad loading and discharge of the cargo. To the extent that it was established that damage to the bags of rice had been caused by bad loading and/or discharge, as opposed to bad stowage, that damage had been the responsibility of the cargo interests who could not recover in respect of such damage from the carrier. 

Damages – Measure of damages. The defendant hospital, where the claimant had been born, admitted liability for the severe autism and significant cognitive impairment he suffered. The present proceedings concerned aspects of quantum the parties were not able to agree. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant would be required to pay for the claimant's placement despite the fact that the local education authority was funding his placement. Further, reasonable compensation for the claimant had to involve funding a private regime at home, after that placement became unavailable on him reaching 25 years. 

Extradition – Extradition order. Three appellants appealed against orders for their extradition to Romania to serve prison sentences on grounds including that there was a real risk that they would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment because of the poor conditions in all Romanian prisons. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeals, held that the appellants had not shown that they would be held in conditions breaching art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular, with respect to their amount of individual space, especially given an assurance from the judicial authority to address that concern. 

Will – Validity – Holograph will or writing– Testamentary effect. Sheriff Court: Allowing an appeal by a petitioner who sought special warrant to issue confirmation as executor nominate of her deceased sister qua her residuary legatee, the court held that the sheriff had erred in refusing the application and finding that the holograph will or writing at deceased's hand which the petitioner relied upon lacked the necessary testamentary intention; the meaning of the document in the sense of it being a will was obvious and unequivocally set out the deceased's wishes and testamentary intentions. 

Adoption – Consent. The mother's daughter, CB, was removed from her care and accommodated pursuant to s 20 of the Children Act 1989. She was placed with prospective adopters. The mother sought permission to, among other things, oppose the adoption. The Family Division dismissed the mother's applications and held that the only outcome that could provide sufficient stability and security was adoption. 

Immigration – Asylum – Judicial review. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition brought by an asylum seeker after the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) allowed his asylum claim on appeal and the Upper Tribunal (UT) subsequently set aside the FTT decision and directed that there be a re-determination, the court held that the UT decision was competently amenable to judicial review, the petition raised 'a point of principle or practice' and the judicial review application was not barred by delay by the petitioner, however the UT determination would and should have been no different if it had been made after the Supreme Court's decision in another case concerning the treatment and evidential value of language analysis for the determination of origin. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant appealed against his convictions for assault with intent to rob and assault by beating. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that whilst the judge's conduct had been deficient, it had not been tantamount to having invited the jury to disbelieve the defendant's defence and the jury had not been left with that impression. However, despite the deficiencies in the manner in which the judge had dealt with the trial, the convictions were safe. 

Practice – Injunction. In the course of proceedings concerning a claim alleging deceit and misrepresentation, among other things, a freezing order had been granted, without notice, against the defendant company, which was alleged to have deceitfully promoted a scheme, which the claimants had invested in. The defendant applied to discharge the injunction or for summary judgment on the claim. The Chancery Division held that there were grounds for discharging the freezing order where there had been material non-disclosure and misrepresentations at the without notice hearing. However, it granted the claimants an opportunity to adduce a further amended pleading and, accordingly, declined to grant summary judgment.