Latest Cases

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the judge's decision, finding that the various procedural requirements were established for her extradition to the United States to face trial for manufacture, importation and distribution of steroids and human growth hormones, and money laundering offences. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that extradition would not constitute a disproportionate interference with the appellant's family life, together with that of her daughter, contrary to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, it would not be oppressive, given her mental condition and risk of suicide. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In the course of care proceedings in relation to two children, B and M, the judge made an order stating, so far as relevant, that the court made an adoption order in respect of B to the applicants to be made seven days from that date and that the court had approved an adoption order in respect of M, such order to be made upon notification to the court that M had undertaken a procedure for circumcision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that it had been the misapplication of the relevant legal and procedural framework that was, in large measure, the reason why it had no option but to allow the appeal. 

Practice – Settlement of action. The plaintiffs had commenced an action which, on the day of the hearing, was settled by agreement. The parties informed the judge that there was a settlement, it was personally ratified by the parties and such was recorded by the court. The plaintiffs then, unsuccessfully, applied to the Supreme Court of Mauritius for a new trial. The Privy Council dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal as the Supreme Court had applied the correct test to the facts. 

Practice – Appeal. The court previously handed down judgment on the preliminary issue of whether the scope of the defendant's liability to the claimant was to be determined in accordance with the law of England or the law of Greece. The defendant, sought permission under s 12(3) of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 for the grant of a certificate by the trial judge for an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Queen's Bench Division granted the certificate as the matter concerned an important issue that would effect a large number of people. 

European Union – Transport. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 2(1) and the second sub-paragraph of art 11(4) of Council Directive (EEC) 91/439 (on driving licences) had to be interpreted as meaning that a member state in whose territory the holder of a driving licence issued by another member state was staying temporarily was not precluded from refusing to recognise the validity of that driving licence on account of unlawful conduct on the part of its holder in the territory of the first member state after that driving licence had been issued that resulted, under the national law of the first member state, in unfitness to drive motor vehicles. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Companies Court sanctioned a scheme of arrangement in respect of a company, DTEK Finance BV, which was incorporated in the Netherlands, where there was a sufficient connection with the English jurisdiction and where, on the evidence, the necessary statutory requirements in s 899(1) of the Companies Act 2006 had been satisfied. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered whether decisions of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) to grant leave to enter to persons who were family members of someone already present in the United Kingdom had been so affected by the overruled reasoning at first instance in MM ([2014] All ER (D) 133 (Jul)) that the appeals should be allowed. The court, in allowing the appeals, held that in each case the FTT had erred in law in its decision in a number of respects. The court gave guidance, among other things, as to the test to be applied to cases falling outside the scope of the new Immigration Rules. 

Compulsory purchase – Compulsory purchase order. The claimants challenged the defendant Secretary of State's decision to confirm a compulsory purchase order (CPO). The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the CPO had been confirmed by the Secretary of State on a basis other than that the interested parties had put forward at the inquiry. Further, the decision had to be quashed for the want of evidence to support crucial conclusions as to the reasonable prospect of an acceptable planning permission being granted and implemented, and given the failure to give the claimants a chance to deal with the changed basis of the CPO. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The defendant Secretary of State sought the dismissal of the claimant's claim for judicial review on the basis of his failure to comply with a consent order, requiring the dismissal of the claim, if he failed to file amended grounds within 21 days. The claimant sought relief from sanctions and explained his failure to comply as due to his lack of funds. The Administrative Court held that the present was not an appropriate case for relief from sanctions and refused the claimant's application. It followed, applying the consent order, that the application for judicial review was to be dismissed. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing his appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of planning permission for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the inspector had erred in his treatment of policies for the supply of housing under para 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and in misstating and misapplying the relevant test.