Latest Cases

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a ruling concerning the interpretation of art 6 of Directive (EC) 2008/115 and decided, inter alia, that the right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applied in the context of that directive and, in particular, art 6 thereof, had to be interpreted as extending to the right of an illegally staying third-country national to express, before the adoption of a return decision concerning him, his point of view on the legality of his stay, on the possible application of arts 5 and 6(2) to (5) of that directive and on the detailed arrangements for his return. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to France to serve a sentence of seven years' imprisonment for smuggling prohibited or highly taxed goods within a criminal organisation. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that, on the proper construction of s 11(1A)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, the forum bar challenge, in s 19B of the Act, was only available for use in the case of an accusation European arrest warrant, not in the case of a conviction warrant. It further rejected the appellant's grounds of appeal, alleging inadequate particulars, and breaches of double jeopardy and art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Shipping – Charterparty. The parties entered into an agreement to ship wheat from Constanza to Djibouti. The ship was to be re-delivered via the Suez Canal. It was delayed and ultimately unloaded its cargo at Port Said, which required passage through the canal. A dispute arose as to whether the cost of traversing the canal should be paid by the claimant or defendant. The Commercial Court held that the cost of passing through the canal was an expense in respect of which the defendant had agreed to indemnify the claimants. 

European Union – Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that the second indent of art 3(2) of Directive (EC) 95/46 (on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data) should be interpreted as meaning that the operation of a camera system, as a result of which a video recording of people was stored on a continuous recording device such as a hard disk drive, installed by an individual on his family home for the purposes of protecting the property, health and life of the home owners, but which also monitored a public space, did not amount to the processing of data in the course of a purely personal or household activity, for the purposes of that provision. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant local authority to grant planning permission and conservation area consent to redevelop a site within a conservation area. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the planning officer's report had not applied the statutory presumption against the grant of permission in conservation area cases, laid down by s 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 

Firearms – Variation to firearm certificate. Sheriff Court. Allowing an appeal against a sheriff's decision directing a chief police officer to vary a firearm certificate to permit an applicant to purchase a six-shot revolver, the chief constable having earlier refused to do so, the court held that the sheriff erred in law in failing to take into account, in an application for a 6-shot revolver for the humane dispatch of deer, that a 2-shot revolver was sufficient for that purpose. 

Personal injury – Liability – Breach of statutory duty – Damages. Court of Session: In an action by a pursuer who suffered a crush injury to his chest when working as an apprentice deck hand in the second defenders' employment on a vessel operated by the first defenders, the court held that there was a breach of statutory duty by the defenders, that the pursuer had established a causal link between the breach and his injuries, and that the total award of damages (including £22,000 for solatium £40,000 for loss of future earnings) would be reduced by 40% because of the pursuer's contributory negligence. 

Injunction – Mandatory injunction. The parties, which were both involved in insurance, entered into a standard terms of business agreement. The claimant company sought a mandatory injunction that money which had been removed from an account by the defendant company be repaired. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, the claimant had made out its case for a mandatory injunction that the money be paid back into the trust account. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by the claimant company against the discharge of three interim third party debt orders which had been obtained by the claimant on a without notice basis. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to the United States to face trial for five extraterritorial terrorist offences. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that there was insufficient evidence to find reasonable grounds to suspect that evidence a potential witness would give in US proceedings had been obtained by torture. It rejected his grounds of appeal, alleging breaches of arts 3, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and found that the appellant's extradition was not barred by reason of forum, given that all alleged offences related to activity outside the United Kingdom.