Latest Cases

Electricity – Supply. The defendant Gas and Electricity Markets Authority decided that the claimant company was subject to the duty to secure access to rival electricity suppliers, under European Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 2009/72 and that the duty could never be shared. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that, on the proper construction of the relevant 'system' for the purpose of applying the duty to secure third party access, the Authority had erred in holding that there could only be one distribution exemption holder per network. 

Extradition – European arrest warrant. By a European arrest warrant (EAW), the respondent sought the appellant's surrender from Gibraltar to face criminal proceedings for an offence allegedly committed in 1992. The appellant's challenges to the validity of the EAW were rejected and he appealed. The central issue was whether the charge intended under the present penal code involved a real risk that the appellant would be pursued for acts which had not, in 1992, constituted such an offence. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that there was nothing in the language of the Spanish Constitution or in common sense to compel a conclusion that there should be no surrender unless the relevant provision under the current penal code had had a single analogue in the previous penal code. 

Electricity – Supply. The claimants challenged a change of policy on the part of the Department for Energy and Climate Change, which brought to a premature close a levy supported scheme and introduced consequential grace periods. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the closure of the scheme had not been unlawful and ultra vires. Pre-legislative statements were not binding assurances that the scheme would not be closed prior to 2017 and had not created such a legitimate expectation. Further, the grace periods were not retrospective and unlawful. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority. The Chancery Division gave directions relating to the distribution of sums to depositors, on an application by the Financial Conduct Authority pursuant to s 382 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, in respect of a tiered Ponzi scheme. The court gave guidance on how the discretion was to be exercised. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. Since April 2014, two Czech children had been subject to care proceedings in the United Kingdom. The issue before the Family Court was whether to request the appropriate district court in the Czech Republic to assume jurisdiction in relation to the children. Having considered art 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility), the Family Court concluded that the children had a particular connection with the Czech Republic, that the district court in the Czech Republic would be better placed to hear the case and that the transfer was in the best interests of the children. 

Claim form – Service. The claimant was a publicly-listed (NASDAQ) shipping company, which owned and operated a fleet of tankers. It brought a claim against the defendant Korean company for damages for alleged repudiation of an option agreement. The defendant applied under CPR 11, challenging the jurisdiction of the English court to hear the claim. The Commercial Court, dismissing the defendant's application, held that service at the London address of the person entered in the register of companies as authorised to accept service on behalf of the defendant had been valid service under s 1139(2)(b) of the Companies Act 2006 and/or CPR 6.9(2). 

Criminal law – Indecent assault. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant Max Clifford's appeal against sentence in respect of eight counts of indecent assault. The court held that, after consideration of the individual offences and the application of modern sentencing attitudes reflected in the guidelines, but tempered by the need to have regard to the statutory maximum available at the time, an overall sentence of eight years' imprisonment had been justified and correct. 

Town and country planning – Development consent. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing an appeal in respect of the proposed redevelopment of a site on the seafront at Margate, found that the Secretary of State had not unlawfully failed to consider the cumulative effects of the proposed development with the effects of the redevelopment of an adjacent site. 

European Union – Pension. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of sub-paragraph (a) of the first paragraph of art s 48 and 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and arts 12(1), (2), 46(1)(2), and 94(2) of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 of the Council, as amended. The request had been made in proceedings between Ms Somova and the Director-General of the Sofia 'Social Security' office (the SUSO) in relation to the decision of the SUSO demanding repayment of the sums received in respect of a right to an individual old-age pension, together with interest, on the ground that that right had been granted in breach of art 94(1) of the Bulgarian Social Insurance Code. 

Deed – Construction. The proceedings related to a collection of books, photographs and the like owned by the Warburg family. The collection was given to the first claimant university, and a trust deed was made regarding the care of the collection. The claimants brought a construction claim regarding the interpretation of the deed. The Chancery Division made a number of findings of fact as to its construction.