Latest Cases

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Courts Martial Appeal Court held that a sentence imposed by the Court Martial of nine months' detention for two counts of assault by penetration had been unduly lenient. However, in the circumstances, the court declined to increase the offender's sentence. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. In a defamation claim brought by the claimant against the defendant newspapers the Queen's Bench Division decided as a preliminary issue the meaning of the articles complained of. 

Tort – Harassment. The second claimant was the wife of the first claimant. The husband had been subjected to a course of harassment by the first defendant in respect of their business dealings. The husband's claim for harassment was allowed, but the wife's was not because, while she had been alarmed and upset, she had not been the target of the conduct. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the ability to bring a harassment claim extended beyond the targeted individual only to those other persons who were foreseeably, and directly, harmed by the course of targeted conduct of which complaint was made, to the extent that they could properly be described as victims of it. On that basis, the wife had established a cause of action for the statutory tort of harassment and she was awarded damages of £6,000. 

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. 

Claim form – Service. The claimant brought claims in England for hire and demobilisation charges said to be due under two charterparties. The second defendant Venezuelan company brought a Pt 20 claim against a third party, another Venezuelan company, contending, among other things, that if it were found to be liable in the main action, the third party was liable to indemnify it, under the terms of a services contract. The second defendant was granted permission to serve the third party outside the jurisdiction. The Commercial Court set aside service outside of the jurisdiction where there was no good arguable case that the third party was a necessary of proper party to the main claim. Further, it ruled that, under Venezuelan law, the services contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction agreement, which bound the second defendant and the third party to the jurisdiction of Venezuela. 

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. 

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. 

Immigration – Education. The claimant college sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's withdrawal of its Tier-4 sponsor licence. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been entitled to be suspicious about the robustness of the claimant's compliance with its duty to assess the English language ability of its students. She had also been entitled to conclude that the claimant had posed a serious risk to immigration control. 

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. 

Contract – Intention to create legal relations. The appellant property developer appealed against a decision of the Second Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session that, on an objective assessment, the respondent Royal Bank of Scotland plc had not intended to enter into a legally binding promise to advance sums in the future to the appellant to purchase a development plot and to fund its development. The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal, deciding that there had been a reasonable basis for the Lord Ordinary's finding that, on an objective analysis, the bank had made such a legally binding promise. Consequently, there was no adequate basis for overturning the Lord Ordinary's findings of fact.