Latest Cases

Arbitration – Tribunal. The claimant owners of a vessel commenced proceedings against the defendant charterer following the vessel suffering damage. The tribunal found for the owners, but they subsequently made an application under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, seeking declaratory relief and seeking to have certain disputes referred back to the tribunal. The Commercial Court, in allowing the application, held that the tribunal had erred and that the disputes in question would be remitted. 

Data protection – Processing of personal information. The claimant Russian national issued proceedings against the defendant National Crime Agency, asserting that processing his personal data whilst he was protected from extradition to Russia by reason of his refugee status was unnecessary and unlawful. The defendant sought the striking out of the claim or summary judgment. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been too weak to outweigh the defendant's data-processing functions. Accordingly, that amounted to a compelling reason why there should be a trial so that those matters could be investigated. 

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. 

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. 

Limitation of action – Negligence. In 2005, the claimant, on the defendant's advice, made an investment. In 2012, when the claimant surrendered the bond, she suffered a loss. In November 2012, the claimant issued a claim in negligence against the defendant and, on the preliminary issue as to limitation, the judge held that the claimant could take advantage of the provisions of s 14A of the Limitation Act 1980. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal, held that the claimant could not take advantage of s 14A of the Act, that the entirety of her claim was time-barred and her action would be dismissed. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (UT) dismissed the appellant's appeal against the First-Tier Tribunal's dismissal of his appeal against a deportation order made by the respondent Secretary of State. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the UT had not erred in law and there were no very compelling reasons, nor any exceptional circumstances, which justified setting aside the deportation order. 

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. 

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. 

Criminal law – Trial. The claimant sought judicial review of the judge's order prohibiting publication of sensitive information heard in camera during his murder trial to the public, including the European Court of Human Rights. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the order was not in breach of the claimant's fundamental human right of access to the courts and it was far from clear that the order had placed the United Kingdom in breach of its international law obligations. Further, the judge had had power to make the order under its inherent powers and pursuant to s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.