Latest Cases

Criminal law – Proceeds of crime. The judge and the Court of Appeal of Jamaica refused the appellant Assets Recovery Agency's application for a customer information order (CIO), pursuant to ss 119 to 125 of the Jamaican Proceeds of Crime Act 2007. The Privy Council, in dismissing the Agency's appeal, held that the Court of Appeal's refusal of the CIO had been correct because the flaws in the application had meant that the statutory conditions for making the order had not been made out. However, it had been in error in its ruling on three points of general principle and the correct approach was set out. 

Criminal law – Harassment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held, among other things, that the judge below had not had the power to make a restraining order against the defendant pursuant to s 5 or 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, in circumstances where he had been found unfit to plead. 

Civil procedure – Jurisdiction – Recovery of information. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion by petitioners who had asked the court to order disclosure of the identity of two users of the respondent's website who, it was averred, posted defamatory matter about them and their guest house, the court concluded that the Lord Ordinary was correct to sustain the respondents' plea of no jurisdiction, as the Scottish courts did not have jurisdiction over the respondents, a company incorporated under the law of Massachusetts who had their principal place of business there, and the clause in the respondents' terms and conditions prorogating the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts courts applied to the application. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling on issues arising out of proceedings between Unicaja Banca SA and Caixabank SA, respectively, and certain of their customers concerning the recovery of unpaid debts arising from mortgage-loan contracts concluded between those parties in the main proceedings. 

Guarantee – Enforcement. The business of the claimant, Gordon Ramsay (R) was run, in large part, by H. H operated a machine that automatically signed R's signature onto a guarantee. The issue arose as to whether R would be bound by the guarantee. The Chancery Division held that when H had committed R to the guarantee, he had been acting within the wide general authority conferred on him by R. 

Damages – Personal injury. The deceased died following a helicopter crash whilst employed on a project by the defendant employer. The deceased's wife brought a claim against the employer. The Queen's Bench Division held that the scope of the defendant employer's duty extended to the charter of the helicopter and the flight, that the duty had been breached and that breach had caused the deceased's death. 

Practice – Consent order. The claimant company obtained an injunction in England against the defendant company. It failed to inform the court that the injunction was to be used to assist an application for a similar injunction in America. After both injunctions had been granted, the parties negotiated a consent order. The defendant applied to set aside the consent order. The Commercial Court held that there was no injustice to the defendant in holding it to the agreement it had made and, hence, the consent order would not be set aside. 

Children's hearing – Proceedings before children's hearing – 'Relevant person'. Court of Session: Allowing appeals against a sheriff's decision confirming a pre-hearing panel's decision deeming the foster carers of two siblings to be 'relevant persons' for the purposes of proceedings respecting them, the court held that the sheriff had erred in considering that any decision taken by a pre-hearing panel on the question whether an individual might qualify standing as a 'relevant person' required to have the welfare of the child in question as its paramount consideration, and furthermore the pre-hearing panel had not given the detailed consideration to the foster carer relationship which was required before they could hold that the foster carers had had a significant involvement in the upbringing (as opposed to care) of the children in question. 

Trade dispute – Dispute connected with terms and conditions of employment. The Privy Council allowed an appeal by Municipal Police Officers in Trinidad and Tobago who had complained that for over a decade they had been treated less favourably than Regular Police Officers, particularly in terms of remuneration. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The appellant Indian national had been refused leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 4 (General) Student, having previously studied in the UK with such leave. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) found that the confirmation of acceptance for studies (CAS) issued by the education institute and other evidence had not provided confirmation of 'academic progress' required by the Immigration Rules. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that, on the evidence, and bearing in mind the expectation that the CAS should not be assigned unless the new course had represented academic progress, the institute had not confirmed that its course of further study had complemented the appellant's previous course at the same level.