Latest Cases

European Union – Companies. The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Court gave an advisory opinion to the Reykjavík District Court following a request by that court concerning the interpretation of art 30(1) of Directive (EC) 2001/24 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions) in proceedings between Landsbanki Islands hf. and Merrill Lynch International Ltd. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Croatia to serve a sentence of four years' imprisonment for attempted murder committed in 1994. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal, having ignored the fresh evidence which it was sought to adduce, held that, on the facts found by the judge and the issues raised at the extradition hearing, it would be oppressive to extradite the appellant by reason of the passage of time. Accordingly, it was not necessary to consider the application to adduce fresh evidence. 

European Union – Companies. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 19(1) of Third Council Directive (EEC) 78/855 should be interpreted as meaning that a 'merger by acquisition' in art 3(1) of that directive resulted in the transfer to the acquiring company of the obligation to pay a fine imposed by final decision adopted after the merger by acquisition for infringements of employment law committed by the acquired company prior to that merger. 

Company – Derivative action. The claimant brought a derivative action on behalf of the third defendant company. The Chancery Division considered an application by the claimants under s 261(1) of the Companies Act 2006 to continue the derivative action. It held that, on the evidence, that all the factors in the case pointed in favour of granting the permission sought. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Privy Council quashed the defendant's convictions in New Zealand for a rape and murder and held that the combination of the defendant's frequently contradictory and often implausible confessions and the diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) led to only one possible conclusion, namely that reliance on his confessions gave rise to a risk of a miscarriage of justice 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for the installation of photovoltaic arrays mounted on frames covering 22.1ha of land neighbouring his Grade II listed building. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority had failed to: (i) consult English Heritage; (ii) discharge the duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings; (iii) consult the claimant in breach of his legitimate expectation arising from its statement of community involvement; and (v) conclude an environmental impact assessment was required. Accordingly, the planning permission would be quashed. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant former Greek judge appealed against orders for her extradition to Greece. The Divisional Court, in dismissing two outstanding grounds of appeal, held that, on the basis of reliable assurances from the judicial authority, there were not substantial grounds for concluding that there was a real risk that the appellant's rights under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be infringed. Further, the present case was not one of the rare ones where art 8 of the Convention would be a bar to extradition, even though the appellant had a short sentence left to serve and had been subject to periods of curfew. 

Prison – Prison conditions. The claimant was a non-smoker serving a sentence of indeterminate detention for public protection. He sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to allow the NHS Smoke-Free Compliance Line to be put on the prison phone system for all prisoners. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the law, as Ch 1 of Pt 1 of the Health Act 2006, which banned smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces, applied to prisons and, in particular, to state prisons for which the Crown was responsible. 

Company – Shareholder – Minority shareholder. The claimant company brought a claim for specific performance against the defendants, alleging that the company had failed to issue it shares, in breach of a loan agreement. The main dispute concerned whether the claimant was a minority shareholder or a shareholder able to control the affairs and business of the company. The claimant sought interim relief, among other things, to allow for the inspection of certain company documents and to prevent the removal from the company of a director associated with the claimant. The Chancery Division granted some interim relief to impose a measure of control on the decision making of the company in the period before trial. 

Costs – Order for costs. SC commenced proceedings against H, in respect of sums he alleged he was owed for building work. H counterclaimed. In the course of proceedings, H brought a claim against KC, SC's father. He later sought to discontinue the claim against KC, and a dispute arose as to how the costs of the action against KC should be made. The Technology and Construction Court made rulings as to the attribution of costs.