Latest Cases

Discovery – Production of documents. The first claimant applied for permission to use 22 documents disclosed in English proceedings by the Serious Frauds Office (the SFO) in Guernsey proceedings. The documents arose from liaison between the SFO and Guernsey authorities concerning an investigation into suspected fraud and related offences. The judge granted permission for two of three purposes and the first claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had correctly evaluated the conflicting public interests and had reached a decision which could not be impugned. 

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 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 – 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.