Latest Cases

Divorce – Financial provision. On the wife's application for enforcement of a maintenance agreement, the judge had made orders regarding the payment of interim periodical payments and arrears of maintenance. He subsequently re-characterised that order as a 'scheduled court directed part payment of the outstanding lump sum' and ordered that the husband be allowed only to make payment to his solicitor if he paid a corresponding sum on each occasion to the wife. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the husband's appeal on the ground that the judge had not had the jurisdiction to have made the orders that he had. 

Injunction – Interim injunction. The proceedings concerned an alleged unlawful means conspiracy between the defendants to steal business from the claimant companies. The claimants made an application for urgent injunctions on notice against a number of the defendants. The Queen's Bench Division made rulings with regard to the undertakings and springboard relief arising from them. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to face trial for thefts dating from 2002. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that there had been a culpable delay of four years due to failure to make inquiries of the Home Office as to the appellant's contact details. Given that delay coupled with the eight year passage of time since the alleged offences, the appellant had established that to order his return would be a disproportionate and unjustified interference with his rights and those of his family under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Police – Complaint against police. The proceedings concerned two linked applications for judicial review of the lawfulness of guidance issued by the College of Policing as part of its 'Armed Policing Authorised Professional Practice' manual (2014). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, addressing the applications as a substantive first instance hearing, held that, while there was a risk of collusion prior to an investigation under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights between police officers who had either used force or witnessed its use, in the light of the safeguards that the guidance provided, and bearing in mind that the adequacy of an investigation for the purposes of art 2 would have to be assessed by reference to all the features of that investigation, the risk of breach of art 2 to which the guidance itself gave rise was not an unacceptable risk such as justified a finding that the guidance itself was unlawful. 

Solicitor – Practice as solicitor – Breach of interdict. Court of Session: In proceedings by the Law Society of Scotland for breach of interdict, the court held that the respondent, a solicitor who had been interdicted from holding himself out as entitled by law to practice as a solicitor and from pretending to be a solicitor, was in breach of interdict by expressly holding himself out as or pretending to be a solicitor, and by holding himself out as or pretending to be a solicitor by implication by providing services that solicitors normally provided while allowing third parties to have the impression he was a solicitor. 

Tax – Alcohol. The defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners had revoked the claimant company's registration as an owner of duty-suspended goods, pursuant to the Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations 1999. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered the refusal of the claimant's application for judicial review in which it had sought interim relief pending the determination of its appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber). In dismissing the claimant's appeal, the court held that it was not entitled to intervene to grant interim relief where the registration of a trader in duty-suspended goods was revoked simply on the basis that there was a pending appeal with a realistic chance of success. In the present case, there was no basis whatever for an argument that the Revenue's decision had amounted to an abuse of power, or that it had been improper or taken in bad faith. 

Arbitration – Award. The claimants sought to challenge an arbitration award on the ground of, among other things, serious irregularity which had caused or would cause substantial injustice. The Commercial Court held that, on the true construction of the Arbitration Act 1996, the claimants were debarred from bringing forward the complaints that they had made. 

Child – Protection. The claimant convicted sex offender sought judicial review of the legality of arrangements made by the police for the retention and disclosure of information and data relating to him. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were engaged, but the schemes were in accordance with the law because they were not arbitrary or disproportionate and could be justified. Further, the schemes gave full effect to X (South Yorkshire) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2012] All ER (D) 232 (Oct)). 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo issued proceedings, alleging that his detention had been unlawful. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the risk of re offending and absconding had justified the claimant's detention whilst the Secretary of State had awaited judgment in R (on the application of P) (DRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another case ([2013] All ER (D) 181 (Dec)). Further, on new evidence, there had been a realistic prospect of removing the claimant after the Secretary of State had abandoned her appeal against that decision. 

Natural justice – Bias. The appellant was the former Prime Minister of St.Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG). The respondent, a retired judge, had been commissioned to inquire into the failure of a project in SVG, which had resulted substantial losses to SVG' public purse. The lower court dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review, ruling that there had been no apparent bias on the part of the respondent in the interim stages of the inquiry. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against that decision. The Privy Council, allowing the appellant's appeal, held that a fair minded observer would have concluded that there had been apparent bias such that the respondent would not have approached the remainder of the inquiry with impartiality.