Latest Cases

Consumer credit – Agreement. The proceedings raised a question as to the legitimacy of registration as a default with credit reference agencies of a non-payment by a debtor (or hirer) of money contracted to be paid under a regulated, but irremediably unenforceable, credit agreement. The Court of Appeal, in allowing the claimants' appeal against the judge's finding that they had not established causation, held, inter alia, that it had not been accurate to describe the first claimant as a defaulter under his hire purchase agreement once a competent court had decided that it had been irremediably unenforceable against him. 

Sentence – Terrorism. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the judge had selected notional custodial terms after trial which had been too high in respect of two defendants, UA and H, who had pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to s 5(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006. The court ruled that the sentences would be quashed and substituted for a sentence of five years three months' imprisonment in respect of UA and a sentence of three years' and nine months' imprisonment in respect of H. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Judge's charge – Admissibility/sufficiency of evidence. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals by two appellants who were convicted of numerous charges, including wiful fire raising and murder, the court rejected a ground of appeal in respect of both appellants which alleged that the judger's charge to the jury lacked balance, and also rejected grounds in respect of one appellant based on sufficiency of evidence, the admissibility of expert evidence on eye witness identification and the admissibility of statements made by an accused outwith the presence of his co-accused. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant was a former director of the claimant company. The claimant brought a claim for, inter alia, delivery up of confidential information and an injunction. The defendant applied for summary judgment in respect of the claim. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant's applications for summary judgment and strike out would be dismissed, save in respect of the claim for delivery up based on an implied term in the parties' contract or the defendant's fiduciary duties. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimants, well-known high street retailers, brought a claim against Visa Inc and others, seeking damages for alleged breaches of European and domestic competition law in relation to the defendants' imposition of multilateral interchange fees ('MIFs') in the course of operating the Visa payment-card system. The defendants applied for the claims to be struck out or for summary judgment on the ground that the claims were time barred under s 2 of the Limitation Act 1980. The issue was whether, as contended by the claimants, concealed facts had disabled the claimants from pleading the cause of action which the court was considering and that accordingly, s 32 of the Act extended the limitation period. The Commercial Court, in allowing the claims, held that the claimants had not identified any such facts and that the claim was appropriate for summary disposal. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The applicant Hungarian national appealed out of time against orders for his extradition to Hungary to serve outstanding prison sentences for offences of fraud and violence. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that it had no jurisdiction to extend time to appeal, as rights of British citizens to appeal out of time in exceptional circumstances could not be extended to EU nationals. That position was not discriminatory and did not impinge on a non-British citizen's ability to argue a point under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Trips and slips. The claimant received £6,000 in general damages following an approved infant settlement after she tripped over defective flooring in the defendant's store. She suffered from a soft tissue injury to her knees and a minor head injury. The claimant suffered from intermittent and minor symptoms, of a permanent nuisance nature, to her left knee. The symptoms caused by the claimant's right knee injury resolved within two years post-accident. The symptoms caused by the claimant's head injury resolved within two weeks. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant's extradition to Poland was ordered to serve sentences for possession and supply of drugs committed in 2002 and 2004. He appealed, relying on the delay, his partner's severe medical problems and the fact that he played a substantial role in the care for his family, including his two children. The Administrative Court held that, taking all relevant factors into account, extradition had to be ordered on the supply offence. However, it should not be ordered in respect of the possession offence as, in itself, it would not have led to a custodial sentence. 

Criminal law – Costs. Following the defendant's successful appeal against a murder conviction, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, considered whether, when a representation order had been made by the court for leading counsel for her, additional costs incurred on a private basis could be recovered by those acting for the defendant. The court held that, among other things, it would require full disclosure of documents evidencing the terms on which the defendant had agreed to pay for her representation, and an explanation as to the reasonableness of the work done and the amounts charged for it. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The proceedings arose out of the grounding of a yacht in July 2008 while it was manoeuvring at slow speed amongst other yachts anchored in a bay in Majorca. The claimant owners of the yacht, which had been built by and purchased from the defendant company, brought a claim for breach of contract. On the facts, the claimants had established, on a balance of probabilities, that if the hull laminate had been of the as-designed thickness, then it would not have suffered a fracture so as to lead to the ingress of water.