Latest Cases

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 

Police – Complaints against police. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner issued judicial review proceedings, seeking to quash an Independent Police Complaints Commission's (the IPCC) decision to reopen the investigation into D's allegation he had been strangled during his arrest, on the basis it was functus officio. D sought to quash the conclusions found in the IPCC's original report. The Divisional Court held that the IPCC had power to seek further information in respect of a report it considered defective. Further, errors of reasoning in the report rendered it irrational. Accordingly, the Commissioner's claim would be dismissed, but D's claim would be allowed. 

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 5(2)(b) and 6 of Directive (EC) 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society). The request had been made in proceedings between Copydan Båndkopi and Nokia Danmark A/S concerning the payment of the levy intended to finance the fair compensation payable under the exception to the reproduction right provided for in art 5(2)(b) of that directive. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of his application for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that the submission that Rodriguez (Flexibility Policy) ([2013] UKUT 42 (IAC)) applied at the date of the decision was totally without merit. Further, the claimant had not submitted a specified document, but a document which had not included the mandatory information and the Secretary of State had been under no obligation to make an enquiry of the claimant as to why he had not done so. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision to grant outline planning permission to the interested party for a residual waste facility and associated development. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that, on its true construction, the existing use of the existing developed land had been safeguarded. Further, the officer's report had sufficiently raised and addressed the harm the proposed development would cause, and the assessment that there would be no significant effects on the Green Belt had not been unreasoned, and was not inexplicable and patently wrong. 

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. 

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. 

Contract – Breach. The claimant companies brought proceedings against the defendant, a former employee of the first claimant, seeking damages for breach of contract and database rights, delivery up of confidential information and injunctive relief. The Mercantile Court held that the defendant had not been constructively dismissed, and had acted in breach of contract and in breach of confidence. He had further breached his fiduciary duties. An award of damages was made against him in the sum of £290,009. 

Costs – Security for costs. The claimant company brought a claim for misrepresentation and conspiracy against the defendants. A judge ordered the claimant to provide security for costs in the form of written confirmation from its insurer that the level of cover in respect of adverse costs had been extended to specified amounts. The defendants, relying on CPR 25.13(2)(c), further applied for an order for security of their costs in the form of an irrevocable bond or a deed of indemnity from the claimant's insurer. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that there was no reason to believe that the claimant would be unable to pay the defendants' costs if ordered to do so. Accordingly, the jurisdictional threshold of CPR 25.13(2)(c) had not been crossed and there was no discretion to grant the order sought.