Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Company – Administration. A company applied, under para 72 of Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, to dispose of certain assets. The Companies Court held that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application where it was not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that a chattel leasing agreement had given possession of the assets to the company. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. The claimant was awarded £5,500 in general damages. She suffered a soft tissue injury to her cervical spine which exacerbated a pre-existing injury. The claimant suffered from severe pain down her neck, radiating to the elbow, for approximately one month. She had pins and needles for six weeks. She also suffered from travel anxiety. The claimant's soft tissue injury to her cervical spine resolved within two years post-accident. The claimant's fear of travel resolved within 12 months. 

Charity – Charitable trust. The husband and wife were involved in the conservation of the rare Chinese tiger. Their relationship broke down and the wife petitioned for divorce. She sought financial relief. The issue arose as to whether a charitable organisation controlled by the husband and wife was a post-nuptial settlement (PNS). The Family Division held that, on its true construction, the organisation was not a PNS. 

Winding up – Liquidator. In the course of the liquidation of the Comet group, the claimant liquidators made an application for disclosure. In allowing the application, the Companies Court held that the benefit likely to be gained by the liquidators as a result of making the order substantially outweighed the burden likely to be imposed on the respondent companies. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against a confiscation order, held that funds and credits paid into the defendant's bank account by a friend, whom he had allowed to use the account, had fallen squarely within the benefit provisions of s 76(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.