Latest Cases

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 132(1)(g) of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax) should be interpreted as meaning that neither state-examined care workers who provided their services directly to persons in need of care nor a temporary-work agency which supplied such workers to establishments recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing came within the scope of 'bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing' contained in that provision. 

Extradition – Extradition order. Three appeals against extradition orders were heard together because they raised a common issue concerning the new extradition bar contained in s 12A of the Extradition Act 2003. The Divisional Court gave guidance on the application of s 12A of the Act and quashed the extradition orders against two appellants, as the judicial authorities had not proved that the sole reason for not making the decisions to charge and try them was their absence from the territory. The third appellant's further challenges based on insufficient particulars and dual criminality were rejected. 

Agent – Secret commission. The appellants had taken out a loan arranged by the respondent credit broker. The respondent had received additional commission payments from the loan company and the payment protection insurer. The appellants had issued proceedings alleging that the respondent, in breach of its fiduciary duty owed to them, had received the additional commissions without having informed them either as to the fact of payment or as to the amount. The recorder dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal and held that there had been a fiduciary duty owed by the respondent to the appellants and that they had not given their informed consent to the additional commissions. Accordingly, the respondent was ordered to make an account of those payments to the appellants. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Privy Council considered an appeal against a sentence of 13 years' imprisonment imposed in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, in circumstances where the defendant had been remanded in custody in the United Kingdom pending extradition. The board allowed the appeal to the extent of reducing the defendant's sentence to 12 and-a-half years' imprisonment by deducting time spent in custody following his return to Trinidad. 

European Union – Patent. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that art 3(a) and (c) of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 469/2009 (concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products) had to be interpreted as meaning that, where a basic patent included a claim to a product comprising an active ingredient which constituted the sole subject-matter of the invention, for which the holder of that patent had already obtained a supplementary protection certificate, as well as a subsequent claim to a product comprising a combination of that active ingredient and another substance, that provision precluded the holder from obtaining a second supplementary protection certificate for that combination. 

Practice – Commercial Court. The Commercial Court considered the claimants' particulars of claim, which ran to 96 pages. The court held that, owing to the length and content of the particulars, they would be struck out, the costs of drafting them would be disallowed and fresh particulars would be drawn up complying with Appendix 4 of the Eighth Edition of the Commercial Court Guide (the Guide). The court stressed the importance of the making of adverse costs orders in cases of flagrant non-compliance with the recommendations of the Guide. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The offender was sentenced to two and-a-half years' imprisonment for wounding with intent, contrary to s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, in circumstances where he had bitten off a sizeable segment of the victim door supervisor's ear, leaving him permanently disfigured. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division increased the sentence to one of four and-a-half years' imprisonment, holding, among other things, that the judge had imposed a sentence which had fallen unjustifiably outside the range identified by the Sentencing Council. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The offender, when aged 14, had taken part in a gang attack on an individual, which had resulted in his death and he was given a tariff of 11 years. The present proceedings concerned the review of the minimum term. The Administrative Court held that the offender had only shown real signs of progress over the last nine months, but his progress, good though it was, could not be regarded as exceptional or unforeseen and a reduction in tariff could not be recommended. 

Deceit – Misrepresentation. The defendant company, Glencore, supplied crude oil to the defendant company, Petrom, which was a state-run Romanian company. Glencore misrepresented that oil supplied was of a different sort to that actually provided. Petrom discovered that fact and commenced proceedings. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, Petrom had a valid claim in deceit both as a matter of English and Romanian law. 

European Union – Companies. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that, on a proper construction of point (1) of art 1 of Directive (EC) 2003/6 and art 1(1) of Commission Directive (EC) 2003/124, in order for information to be regarded as being of a precise nature for the purposes of those provisions, it need not be possible to infer from that information, with a sufficient degree of probability, that, once it was made public, its potential effect on the prices of the financial instruments concerned would be in a particular direction.