Latest Cases

Equity – Breach of confidence. The proceedings concerned the development of mosquito nets. The claimant companies submitted that the defendant companies had made use of their confidential information in developing a competing product. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the defendants were liable for breach of confidence. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Criminal law – Indecent assault. The defendant had been convicted of three offences of indecent assault contrary to s 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment on each count concurrent. The offences had taken place in the 1970s when the defendant was an Anglican priest and the complainant resident in a local authority care home. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against conviction and held, amongst other things, that it had not been demonstrated to the judge that irredeemable prejudice had been done to the defendant's case as a result of missing contemporaneous records. The defendant's appeal against sentence was allowed and the sentence reduced to concurrent sentences of nine months' imprisonment. The court noted that the defendant's physical and mental health was steadily deteriorating. 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Latvia to face trial for two drug offences, concerning possession of small quantities of cannabis, with a minimum term of five years' imprisonment in the event of conviction. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that it was impossible to say that a minimum five-year sentence was proportionate. It was simply so disproportionate that extradition to face trial for that offence, risking conviction and the certainty on conviction of such a sentence would be disproportionate. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Afghan national issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the defendant Secretary of State had erred in granting him discretionary leave to remain, rather than indefinite leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, having concluded that illegality or error in the public law sense had not been established in relation to an earlier decision, there could be no basis for saying that the Secretary of State ought to have corrected an injustice by granting indefinite leave to remain. 

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. 

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.