Latest Cases

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. H was made bankrupt. His assets on the date of the bankruptcy included four pension policies. H did not wish to crystallise the policies and, without crystallisation, the precise value of the policies could not be determined. The applicant trustee in bankruptcy applied to the court, effectively seeking that H be ordered to crystallise his policies and to exercise his elections in a manner desired by the trustee. The Chancery Division held that there was no power to require H to elect in any particular way. The application would be dismissed. 

European Union – Treaty provisions. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the application by the European Commission for a declaration that by retroactively curtailing the right of taxpayers to recover tax which had been levied contrary to European Union law as set out in s 107 of the Finance Act 2007, the United Kingdom had failed to comply with its obligations under art 4(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

Extradition – Extradition order. Three appeals against extradition to Poland were heard together because they raised, for the first time in the Divisional Court, common issues as to the compatibility of extradition with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and the proportionality of extradition that arose under s 21A(1)(a) and (b) of the Extradition Act 2003. Having given extensive guidance on s 21A of the Act, the court held that the appellants' extradition was not incompatible with their rights under art 8 of the Convention and was proportionate within the meaning of s 21A(1)(b) of the Act. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendants' decisions, holding him in custody for seven years after the expiry of the minimum term of his sentence of imprisonment for public protection. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that the defendants' failings had resulted in a 12 month period of avoidable delay, warranting something more than declaratory relief. Accordingly, the sum of £2,500 would be awarded for a breach of the claimant's rights under art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Damages – Personal injury. The defendant's car struck the claimant's vehicle from behind when the claimant was stationary at traffic lights. Liability was conceded but the parties were fundamentally at odds on the issue of quantum. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant had proved that his symptoms had been caused by a brain injury and not by psychological cause and it was on that basis that the various heads of damages would be assessed. 

Elections – Parliamentary. The proceedings concerned whether the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013's blanket disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners, in relation to the Scottish independence referendum, was ultra vires the Scottish Parliament. The Supreme Court held, inter alia, that the claimants' claim under art 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (A3P1) failed. The requirement in A3P1, that elections were held 'at reasonable intervals', suggested that the drafters had not had referendums in mind. The words in their ordinary meaning had not supported a wider view that it had been intended to cover any major political decision which was put to a popular vote, however important that decision might be. 

Road traffic – Accident. A collision occurred between the claimant and the defendant in which the claimant suffered serious injury. The claimant claimed against the defendant in negligence. The defendant disputed liability on that basis of the defence of automatism. The Queen's Bench Division agreed with the claimant's analysis of the case and found that he was entitled to judgment with damages to be assessed. 

Sentence – Custodial sentence. Following the quashing of his indeterminate sentence, the claimant claimed for damages on the grounds that his detention after the expiry of the minimum term had been unlawful and was incompatible with art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claim, held that an appeal decision quashing a sentence did not render detention pursuant to that sentence unlawful within art 5(1) of the Convention. Further, as arbitrariness was predicated on unlawfulness, the claimant could not succeed in relation to the sentence. 

Immigration – Appeal. The proceedings concerned two appeals, both of which raised issues regarding the proper approach for the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) to adopt in dealing with deportation of foreigners who had committed crimes while in the United Kingdom. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal in respect of each of the UT's determinations. It held that, in each case, the UT had erred in law, in having failed to interpret and apply the new Immigration Rules and had failed properly to balance the factors relevant to an assessment under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Child – Protection. The court was concerned with a vulnerable young person, AB, who was 17 years old and whom it was asserted by the local authority that she was the victim of child sexual exploitation by, at least, ten much older men. The authority applied for civil injunctions under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of the men. The Family Division granted the injunctions as requested and the reporting restrictions order in respect of each respondent were discharged.