Latest Cases

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. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Turkish nationals sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to grant them three years' discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom, rather than indefinite leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State's failure to act in accordance with her promise to the claimant's Member of Parliament that she would treat the case as a priority within the legacy programme had not led to historical injustice. There could be no illegality in denying an entitlement to a decision any earlier, as no such entitlement had existed. 

Immigration – Unlawful detention – Damages. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings in which a failed asylum seeker sought damages for wrongful detention, the court held that the Lord Ordinary had not erred in concluding that the petitioner was unlawfully detained for a period of one year and that an award of £36,000 would afford her appropriate compensation. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant sought judicial review of his immigration detention between 24 August 2012 and 20 November 2013. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that his detention had been entirely reasonable given the high risk of re-offending and absconding. Further his mental illness could be and had been managed in detention, and arts 3 and 8 of the Convention had not been breached. 

Nursing and midwifery – Professional conduct. Court of Session: Allowing an appeal against a decision of the Nursing and Midwifery Council's Conduct and Competence Committee, which found the appellant guilty of serious misconduct and issued a striking off order, the court held that the appellant's representation in connection with the proceedings before the committee was inadequate and that the committee erred in law by accepting the methodology the respondents relied on to identify the person said to be responsible for taking drugs from the ward where the appellant worked without authorization. 

Negligence – Duty of care. The issue in the first claim whether the defendant, in acting an the claimants' investment fund manager, had acted in breach of fiduciary duty, in breach of contract, and negligently. In the second claim, the issue was whether the defendant chief executive officer of the defendant in the first claim had dishonestly assisted it to breach its fiduciary duties and induced its breaches of contract. The Commercial Court held that the claimants in both claims were entitled to remedies against both defendants. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that Council Directive (EC) 2000/78 should be interpreted as meaning that the obesity of a worker constituted a 'disability' within the meaning of that directive where it entailed a limitation resulting in particular from long-term physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers could hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers. It was for the national court to determine whether those conditions were met. 

Contract – Condition. Following early termination by the claimant of an ISDA Master Agreement, the claimant sought summary judgment on its claim for money said to be owed. The application was dismissed due to the claimant's failure to provide the defendants with sufficient details of how the sum claimed had been calculated. The claimant provided further calculations, more than two years after termination of the agreement, and again applied for summary judgment. The Commercial Court allowed the application as, on the proper construction of cl 6(d) of the ISDA Master Agreement, the second notification, although late, had been effective and so the sums owed had been payable under that clause. 

Company – Liquidation. Following successful application for relief by liquidators under ss 234 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the Companies Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to order payment of expenses incurred by the respondent solicitors in complying with an order for the delivery up of documents and electronic files. The court held that, in the circumstances, it should not, in the exercise of it's discretion, allow the respondents to charge for the time incurred. 

European Union – Patent. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling that art 6(2)(c) of Directive (EC) 98/44 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions) should be interpreted as meaning that an unfertilised human ovum whose division and further development had been stimulated by parthenogenesis did not constitute a 'human embryo', within the meaning of that provision, if, in the light of current scientific knowledge, that ovum did not, in itself, have the inherent capacity of developing into a human being, that being a matter for the national court to determine.