Latest Cases

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant had paid £50,000 to a company run by the first defendant, intending to invest in the company in return for shares. He brought a claim for damages for breach of contract. It was common ground that, if there was no binding contract, the claimant was entitled, as restitution, to the return of his money, together with an award for the 'time value' of the money. The Chancery Division held that the claimant had advanced £50,000 to the company in anticipation of an agreement to invest in return for shares, but he had failed to satisfy the court that any agreement had been concluded between the parties. However, the claimant had a restitutionary claim against the company for the return of his £50,000 and for the time value of the money. 

Extradition – Extradition hearing. The appellant appealed against the judge's decision that his case should be sent to the Secretary of State for her decision whether to order his extradition to India. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to conclude that there had been a prima facie case and to have rejected the appellant's abuse of process argument. Further, there was no basis for interfering with the judge's conclusion that there would be no risk of breach of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and extradition would not be disproportionate with respect to art 8 of the Convention. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the action brought by easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd (easyGroup) against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between Tui AG and easyGroup concerning the application by easyGroup to register a figurative sign depicting the words 'easyAir-tours' as a Community trade mark. 

Freedom of information – Request. Two appeals were heard together as they concerned common issues regarding s 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In the second appeal, issues arose regarding requests for information made under reg 12 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, SI 2004/331. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, gave guidance on the meaning of 'vexatious' and 'manifestly unreasonable' and whether past requests could be taken into account in considering whether a fresh request was vexatious. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The local authority came before the court with a second set of care proceedings in respect of a child H. The first set of proceedings in respect of H had been transferred to Lithuania pursuant to art 15 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003. The Family Division held that it had jurisdiction in respect of the application for the care order made by the local authority and further, the court was not satisfied that the Lithuanian court would be better place to hear the English proceedings. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant entry clearance officer's refusal of entry clearance as a Tier 4 (General) student based on his interview answers. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the decision-making process culminating in the refusal of the claimant's application had been manifestly unfair and the decision had been tainted by irrationality. It followed that the Case Worker Guidance relating to Tier 4 interviews and the genuine student rule had been breached to that extent. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The Supreme Court considered the question of whether the policy of the respondent Police Service of Northern Ireland to retain indefinitely the DNA profile, fingerprints and photographs of a person convicted of a recordable offence was in breach of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court held, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, that the policy was not in breach of art 8 of the Convention, as it was within the margin of appreciation and proportionate. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The claimant local planning authority challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, varying an enforcement notice issued to the second defendant to require compliance with previously granted planning permission. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that it could not clearly be determined that the issue of whether the prior permission had still been extant had been addressed explicitly and an unambiguous decision reached. Further, the inspector had not had the power to act as he had in the particular circumstances. 

Housing – Homeless person. The appellants had all applied for accommodation on the basis that they were in priority need, under s 189(1)(c) of the Housing Act 1996. Their applications were refused and the appellants were unsuccessful before the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held, inter alia, that, in order to decide whether an applicant fell within s 189(1)(c) of the Act, an authority or reviewing officer should compare him with an ordinary person if made homeless, not an ordinary actual homeless person. Further, when deciding if an applicant was 'vulnerable', one had to take into account such services and support that would be available to him he were homeless. It did not matter, at least in principle, whether the support was provided pursuant to a legal obligation. However, the question whether there was a legal obligation on the third party to provide the support could sometimes be relevant, in that it might be said to be intrinsically more likely that a person would continue to provide support if he had a legal obligation to do so. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants sought a wasted costs order against the solicitor and counsel that had represented the unsuccessful eighth defendant in contempt proceedings. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application.