Latest Cases

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by the applicants in Case T-420/11 for annulment of: (i) Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP; (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011; (iii) Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, in so far as those measures concerned the applicants. The General Court further granted the application by the applicants in Case T‑56/12 for the annulment of: (i) Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP; (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011; and (iii) Regulation No 267/2012, in so far as those measures concerned the applicants. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant company challenged the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing planning permission for demolition of existing buildings and the construction and operation of a recycling and energy recovery facility. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had failed to consider the allocation of the site as a waste management facility in the Green Belt and a statement that the site would be removed from the Green Belt in the future, and to weigh those factors in the very special circumstances balance alongside those matters which he had taken into account. 

Bankruptcy – Insolvency. The claimant company served a statutory demand on the defendant. A judge dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the statutory demand and for an extension of time to adduce a supplemental expert reports. The claimant presented a bankruptcy petition against the defendant. It appealed against orders by a Chief Registrar, adjourning the bankruptcy petition and making directions on the defendant's application to rescind or vary orders of the judge. The Chancery Division, in allowing the appeal, held that s 375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 gave the court jurisdiction to review, vary or rescind the appellate orders of the judge. However, on the requirements imposed on the defendant by r 6.5(4)(c), the application under s 375(1) of the Act failed on the merits and was dismissed and the bankruptcy order was made. 

National Health Service – Dentist. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on the proper interpretation of the Standard General Dental Services Contract entered into in accordance with the National Health Service (General Dental Services Contracts) Wales Regulations 2006, SI 2006/490. 

Crown Court – Costs. In a Crown Court ruling, the judge held that where 'cell site', telephone and similar material was served by the prosecution upon the defence in digital form, such material had to be included as 'pages of prosecution evidence' for graduated fee purposes, and payment made to defence advocates on that basis. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Spain to face trial for rape and attempted murder on the basis that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him given his psychiatric illness, which gave rise to a risk of suicide. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that there was no proper basis for supposing that the Spanish authorities would not discharge their obligations to take appropriate steps to protect the appellant from the risk of suicide. In particular, there was no evidential basis for supposing that the communication difficulties he feared would materialise. 

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Bank Tejarat for annulment of certain decisions and regulations of the European Council concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as they concerned Bank Tejarat. 

Arbitration – Adjudication. St Austell Printing Company Ltd (St A) engaged Dawnus Construction Holdings Ltd (Dawnus) to design and construct two warehouse/industrial units. A dispute arose about payment, and the matter was considered by an arbitrator. St A raised two grounds of objection to the arbitrator's conclusions. The Commercial Court held that both grounds of objection would fail, and Dawnus was entitled to summary judgment on the sums ordered by the adjudicator. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the judge's decision sending his case to the Secretary of State for her decision whether the appellant was to be extradited in order to face trial for the war crime of shooting dead a civilian in 1991. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that it would not be unjust to extradite the appellant due to the passage of time and it would not be oppressive to extradite him on the basis of his physical and mental condition. 

Judgment – Order. The claimant had brought proceedings against the defendant, seeking an account in respect of a business. At trial, the master took an income and expenditure account in respect of a London property, and concluded that the defendant owed the claimant money. He also determined the defendant's claims, numbered STP1 to STP16, and gave judgment in the defendant's favour on some of those claims. The claimant appealed, maintaining that the procedural orders that had given rise to the hearing before the master had not entitled him to determine the 16 STP claims. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal. It held, inter alia, that, in the circumstances, the claimant could not succeed in arguing that there had been no jurisdiction under the procedural orders for the master to have dealt with the those claims.