Latest Cases

Costs – Order for costs. Three applicants, D, P and DAP, made common cause against T, originally relying upon the same points of claim. They subsequently fell out and served separate pleadings. Shortly before trial, P and DAP settled with T, and T agreed not to seek any order for costs against P or DAP. D proceeded to trial and lost. D was ordered to pay 80% of T's costs, with no contribution to those costs from P and DAP. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing D's appeal in part, held, inter alia, that the settlement agreement was not an answer to D's contribution claim. It was merely part of the circumstances of the case which the judge, having exercised his discretion under CPR 44.2, should have taken into account. 

Costs – Protective costs order. The claimant made an application, under s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, seeking to quash the grant of planning permission. The judge exercised her discretion to make a protective costs orders, notwithstanding that it was not a claim under the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters for the purposes of CPR 45.41, because costs protection under that rule was confined to claims for judicial review. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Secretary of State's appeal, held, inter alia, that, once it was accepted that the exclusion of statutory appeals and applications from CPR 45.41 had not been an oversight, but had been a deliberate expression of a legislative intent, it necessarily followed that it would not be appropriate to exercise a judicial discretion so as to side-step the limitation that had been deliberately imposed by secondary legislation. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division entered summary judgment for the defendant hospital in respect of data protection brought by the claimant. It also struck out a defamation claim and gave the defendant its costs in relation to certain abandoned claims of the claimant. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to Poland to face trial for obtaining a bank loan by deception. He relied on art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the impact of extradition on his partner and child. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the appellant's extradition would be a disproportionate interference with family life and the welfare of his child. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The parties had issued cross-petitions to grant relief against unfairly prejudicial conduct of a company's affairs. Various interim orders were made, the effect of which was that judgment was entered against HRH Prince Abdulaziz (the Prince) in respect of a counterclaim, and his application to stay the judgment pending the trial of the petitions was refused. The Prince appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing his appeals, held, among other things, that the Prince could not rely on a protocol in Saudi Arabia that members of the royal family were prevented from signing court documents to avoid compliance with an order that he provide a signed witness statement. The Supreme court held that there was no good reason to interfere in the case management of the trial judges or of the decision of the Court of Appeal. 

European Union – Trade marks. Following the main judgment in the proceedings, in which orders were made against a number of websites that had been selling fake goods, the Chancery Division made similar orders against two further websites. 

Costs – Security for costs. The proceedings concerned an action for patent infringement in respect of barriers which were used to prevent unauthorised intrusion from pirates onto ocean going ships. The applicant (the defendant in the main proceedings) sought security for costs, pursuant to CPR 25(3)(2)(c), on the basis that the claimant would be unable to pay its costs if so ordered. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court (IPEC), in granting the application, held that the principles governing whether security for costs should be awarded were the same in the IPEC as in any other court. On the evidence, it was appropriate to make the order in the present case. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The claimant Israeli national was refused leave to re-enter the United Kingdom, detained and refused entry clearance on the basis that she had been employed in the UK in breach of a condition of her initial leave to enter. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application for judicial review, held that the decision finding that the claimant had taken employment had not been irrational or unlawful. Further, the claimant had had no legitimate expectation that her activities in the UK would be compatible with her leave, as she had not fully explained her activities. 

Landlord and tenant – Leasehold enfranchisement. The claimant freeholders had successfully issued proceedings contending that a notice served by the defendants claiming collective enfranchisement had not complied with the requirements of s 13(3)(e) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that those matters required to be included on the notice by s 13(3)(e) went to the very heart of the right to collective enfranchisement and, consequently, the statutory scheme, on its proper interpretation, pointed clearly in favour of the invalidity of the notice by virtue of the non-compliance. 

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Safa Nicu Sepahan Co., (Safa Nicu) for: (i) annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 503/2011 implementing Regulation (EU) 961/2010 (on restrictive measures against Iran) and Council Regulation (EU) 267/2012; and (ii) compensation for non-material damage. However, Safa Nicu's claim for compensation in respect of material damage was dismissed.