Latest Cases

European Union – Immigration. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that Directive (EC) 2008/115 (on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals) in particular, arts 6(1) and 8(1), read in conjunction with art 4(2) and (3), should be interpreted as precluding legislation of a member state such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provided, in the event of third-country nationals illegally staying in the territory of that state, depending on the circumstances, for either a fine or removal, since the two measures were mutually exclusive. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve sentences for stealing and intentionally dealing in stolen property, pursuant to three European arrest warrants (EAWs). The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal in part, held that the judge's decision that the appellant would be entitled to a retrial or appeal could not stand and he had to be discharged from extradition pursuant to EAW 3. However, his appeal was dismissed in relation to EAW 1 and EAW 2, as he could not rely on the delay, and his extradition was proportionate and necessary. 

Practice – Striking out. The present proceedings arose from a dispute over a joint venture agreement originally made in 1981. Following attempts at arbitration and a decision by the Supreme Court, the claimant, H, brought a fresh claim. The Commercial Court allowed an application by the defendant, J, to strike out the claim, on the grounds that, in bringing the present proceedings, H had vexed J with litigation twice in circumstances that amounted to harassment of J. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant underwent a procedure at a hospital for which the defendant NHS Trust had responsibility for. He was not warned of the possibility of post-operative deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. He presented at the hospital feeling unwell, but failed to mention calf pain as a symptom. He later suffered bilateral pulmonary emboli originating from the main right and left pulmonary arteries. He brought a claim for personal injuries and damages on the basis that he ought to have been warned of the risk of pulmonary embolism. The defendant contended that the claimant had himself been contributory negligent. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant had been in breach of duty and that that had caused the claimant's injury. It followed that there had to be judgment for the claimant for the total agreed sum. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. SM executed Lasting Power of Attorney in favour of her daughter and grandson. The Office of Public Guardian (OPG) applied to revoke the LPA. The Court of Protection having regard to s 22 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, revoked the LPA and appointed a deputy panel to act as SM's deputy for property and affairs. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a total sentence of two years and two hundred days' imprisonment, in respect of two counts of theft and four counts of domestic house burglary had been unduly lenient, in circumstances where the offender had a 'truly terrible' criminal record. The sentence was substituted for one of four-a-half years' imprisonment. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 11A(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 should be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the taxable amount for the calculation of VAT on an application, within the meaning of art 5(7)(b) thereof, of a building that the taxable person had constructed was to be the purchase price, at the time the application was made, of buildings whose location, size and other essential characteristics were similar to those of the building in question. In that regard, it was irrelevant whether part of the purchase price was represented by interim interest. 

European Union – Regulations. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal bought by Mr Anbouba by which he had requested that the Court set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in which the General Court had dismissed his action for annulment of various decisions and regulations made by the European Council concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as his name appeared on the lists of the persons to whom the restrictive measures decided upon under those acts applied. 

Criminal law – Obstructing constable in execution of duty. The appellant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction for wilfully obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty, alleging that he was immunised by an alleged assault by the police officer. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that, even if the appellant had been the victim of an assault, it provided him with no defence. However, the push given by the officer to the appellant had been lawful, as the reasonable use of force had been authorised by s 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. 

European Union – Regulations. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal bought by Mr Anbouba by which he had requested that the court set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in which the General Court had dismissed his action for annulment of various decisions and regulations made by the European Council concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as his name appeared on the lists of the persons to whom the restrictive measures decided upon under those acts applied.