Latest Cases

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for her extradition to Lithuania to serve an activated suspended sentence of three years' imprisonment for eight fraud offences with others. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that extradition would be a disproportionate interference with the rights of the appellant and her son under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, given the uncontradicted evidence as to the son's unresolved trauma arising from witnessing the abuse of his mother in the past and the likely detrimental consequences if he was moved from her care, and the appellant's current pregnancy. 

Negligence – Information or advice. The claimant bank brought a claim in negligence against the defendant concerning non-statutory audit reports, which the defendant had provided to the Von Essen Hotels Limited Group and which the bank had relied on. The bank alleged that the defendant had owed it a duty of care in tort in relation to the contents of the reports and that it had been negligent. The Commercial Court, in allowing the defendant's application for summary judgment, held that a disclaimer in the reports took effect to negate any duty of care which could otherwise be owed by the defendant to Barclays and it was reasonable, in accordance with the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Act. 

Trust and trustee – Corporate trustee. The dispute arose out of contractual arrangements made in connection with a project for the construction of a national stadium and sporting complex in Grenada and, in particular, a facility agreement made with between the appellant, NS, and CLICO Investment Bank Ltd (CIB). The proceedings concerned the ownership of funds payable under that agreement which had been frozen pursuant to an ex parte injunction. The Privy Council set aside an order dismissing NS's notice of appeal against a declaration that the frozen fund was held on trust for NH. 

Valuation – Hereditament. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) determined that the hereditament in issue, namely, a floor in an office building, would be entered in the local non-domestic rating list at a rateable value of £1. The Court of Appeal allowed the valuation officer's appeal. The valuation officer had to begin by asking whether the hereditament in its actual state was in a condition such as to make it reasonably fit for the occupation of a reasonably-minded tenant who would be likely to take it. The assumption required by para 2(1)(b) of Sch 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 required it to be assumed that the hereditament was in a state of reasonable repair, unless the repairs were uneconomic. 'Repairs' could only mean repairs as traditionally understood in the law of landlord and tenant. On the material date, the hereditament had been 'an office suite in disrepair', the works in question could fairly be described as repairs and it was not uneconomic to reinstate the building. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Infocit - Prestacao de Servicos, Comercio Geral e Industria, Lda (Infocit), against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between Infocit and DIN - Deutsches Institut fur Normung eV, concerning the application by Infocit for registration of the word sign 'DINKOOL' as a Community trade mark. 

Liquidator – Company. In the course of the liquidation of a company, the liquidator applied for delivery of certain documents relating to the company's management: in particular, concerning the work and payment of receivers. The Companies Court made rulings as to the documents to be made available to him. 

Employment – Practice and procedure. The employee and his colleague (the co-claimant) alleged unfair dismissal against their employer. The claims were dismissed. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's application for an extension of the time to present his notice of appeal, in circumstances where he had not included the ET1 and ET3 forms of the co-claimant. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the employee's appeal, ruled that the time limited by r 3(3) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, SI 1993/2854, for serving the documents necessary for the proper institution of an appeal, started to run when an employment tribunal sent out a judgment and written reasons even though it had been wrongly addressed. Further, where two cases involving two different claimants were heard together, the two cases constituted the 'proceedings' for the purposes of r 3(1) of the Rules, and even if only one claimant proposed to appeal, r 3(1)(b) required the prospective appellant to either serve the ET1 form and ET3 forms in the co-claimant's case or give an explanation for not doing so. An appeal would not be properly instituted where neither step had been taken. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employment tribunal had found that an employee had not been unfairly or wrongfully dismissed in circumstances where the employer had reasonably found him to have committed an act of dishonesty in respect of his expenses claims for mileage. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the employee's appeal as the tribunal had not failed to consider whether the employer had conducted a reasonable investigation into his response to the disciplinary investigations, where, what mattered, was the reasonableness of the investigation as a whole. 

Adoption – Order. The father was 42. The mother was 41. They had four children who were all the subject of care proceedings mounted by the relevant local authority against the mother and the father. In due course, all the children were removed permanently from the parents with a view to either long-term fostering or adoption. There was before the court an application for the adoption of a child SSM. The father sought leave to oppose the application pursuant to s 47(5) Adoption and Children Act 2002. The father's application and the adoption application were to be one rolled-up hearing. The Family Division held that the sole question was whether it was in SSM's best interests that an adoption order be made. The father's application would be dismissed. 

Negligence – Contributory negligence. The pursuer had been seriously injured by a car when crossing the road. Her contributory negligence had been assessed at 90%. On appeal, her contributory negligence had been reduced to 70%. The Supreme Court held that the parties had been equally responsible for the damage suffered by the pursuer. Accordingly, the appeal would be allowed and 50% of the agreed damages would be awarded to the pursuer.