Latest Cases

Equity – Breach of confidence. Following the claimant companies' successful action concerning the defendants companies' improper use of confidential information, the Chancery Division considered the issue of damages. It held that, in total, the defendants were liable for US$485,419. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Latvia to stand trial for 'hooliganism', allegedly committed in March 2007. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the absence of a right in Latvia to have a trial terminated on grounds of delay alone had not given rise to a concern under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the overwhelming likelihood was that the appellant would not be sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding the time he had already spent in custody. Accordingly, his extradition would be disproportionate in terms of art 8 of the Convention. 

Libel and slander – Damages. The claimant companies brought an action in defamation and libel against the defendants. The claimants were granted interim injunctions against each of the defendants and there was also an order made against the fifth defendant which related to solicitation of the claimants' customers and inducement of breach of contract. Judgment in default of defence was obtained by the claimants against the first, second, fourth and fifth defendants by order and the claimants applied for damages. The Queen's Bench Division held that the right award of general damages in the case of the first claimant was one of £75,000. 

Criminal law – Telephone. The appellant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction for sending a menacing message by a telecommunications network. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, although there had been ample grounds for the defendant court to conclude that the identification of the appellant's voice had been reliable, there had been no threat expressed or implied in the words used, nor had they demonstrated the requisite mental element to menace. 

Copyright – Infringement. The claimant record companies applied for an injunction against the defendants, who were the five main retail internet service providers in the UK, requiring the defendants to take measures to block, access by their customers to websites which used peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol. The Chancery Division held that both users and the operators of the websites in issue had used the defendants' services to infringe the claimants' copyrights. The injunction was granted. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Pakistani national issued judicial review proceedings, claiming that his detention despite medical advice that he was not fit to be detained was unlawful. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant's detention had been lawful, it had not breached arts 2, 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights or the defendant Secretary of State's policy. Further, the alleged breach of s 149 of the Equality Act 2010 was wholly unmeritorious. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Romania to serve a sentence of three and a half years' imprisonment for swindling and to face trial for driving without a licence. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, held that the fact that the appellant served had nearly two years' imprisonment overall was crucial and the reality was that, unless he was able to involve himself properly in family proceedings, the chances of him being able to maintain family unity were slight. 

Maintenance of action – Champerty. The claimants retained the defendant solicitors firm in relation to a land transfer transaction. The terms of the retainer were finalised on 5 August 2002. A dispute arose and the judge held that the retainer had not obliged the defendant to conduct litigation and it was therefore enforcible. The claimants appealed. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that as the work that the defendant had carried out was work carried by them in their capacity as solicitors, the retainer had been (or at least become) an agreement within the definition of conditional fee agreement in s 58 (2) of the 1990 Act and the defendant was not entitled to enforce the retainer agreement. 

Local authority – Residential care home. The claimant care home owner sought recovery of unpaid fees from the estate of a former resident, MS. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the claimant's application for summary judgment and ordered that summary judgment be entered for the estate. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held, amongst other things, that whatever the precise arrangements between the local authority and the claimant, the authority had remained at least arguably liable for the claimant's fees. 

Practice – Parties. The Polish National Association of Tobacco Growers (KZPT) sought permission to intervene in judicial review proceedings, concerning the validity of European Parliament and Council Directive (EU) 2014/40, which purported to impose prescriptive regulation upon the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products upon member states in the European Union. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it could not be concluded that KZPT had a useful contribution to make in the national litigation. Further, the connection between the legitimate interests of KZPT and the United Kingdom was very tenuous, and substantially unparticularised.