Latest Cases

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of two years, one month and five days' imprisonment for wounding. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that it would be disproportionate to order his extradition to Poland to serve so short a period imposed, even for the very serious offence, given his time spent on tagged curfew, his work and behaviour in the United Kingdom. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against an order for his extradition to Poland to serve three years and two months' imprisonment for battery, criminal damage and driving with excess alcohol. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that extradition should be refused, as it would infringe the appellant's right to respect for his family life and, more importantly, the family life of his wife and children, if the extradition order were to be upheld. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the Framework Agreement on part-time work, which was annexed to Council Directive (EC) 1997/81 (concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC), in particular cl 5.2 thereof, should be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, it did not preclude national legislation pursuant to which the employer could order the conversion of a part-time employment relationship into a full-time employment relationship without the consent of the worker concerned. 

Easement – Right of way. The claimants and defendants were neighbours engaged in a dispute concerning the claimants' rights to open and close gates over their driveway, which, the defendants contended, constituted a trespass over the defendant's land, unless the claimants had a right to do so. The Chancery Division held that, while a right to occupy airspace by hanging a gate over the land forming a driveway was capable of being an easement, the claimants were not entitled to a declaration that they were entitled to an easement permitting the opening and closing of the gates at all times and for all purposes. The claimants had a right to close and open the gates for all purposes connected with the reasonable enjoyment of their property provided such use did not substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the defendants' property. 

Land – Valuation. The claimant company brought proceedings against the defendant company for loss of earnings following an allegedly negligent valuation of land. The Chancery Division considered a number of preliminary issues and held, among other things, that the defendant had owed the claimant a duty of care in both contract and tort. 

Negligence – Traffic signal. The proceedings concerned an appeal as to liability and quantum against the dismissal of a claim in negligence, in respect of a road traffic collision, on the basis of, inter alia, a finding that the coincidence of location fallacy applied. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the claimant's appeal as to liability, held that the claimant's case had not rested on the coincidence of location argument and liability would be apportioned 50:50. The appeal as to quantum would be dismissed. 

Disclosure – Disclosure of documents. The issue was whether the declaration under s 6 the Justice and Security Act 2013, permitting a closed material procedure, meant that art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights required further details of the defendants' case to be provided, by any further disclosure, summary or gist. The Queen's Bench Division applying a balancing exercise rejected the application for further disclosure. 

Tort – Wrongful interference with goods. The defendant mortgagee executed a warrant for possession in respect of the claimant mortgagor's property. The claimant brought a claim for damages against the defendant in respect of its disposal of chattels which she had left behind at the property. The Chancery Division, in determining a preliminary issue, held that, taking account of exceptional and egregious circumstances of the case, the defendant's conduct had been right and reasonable. The defendant was not liable in damages to the claimant or any of the other owners of chattels left on the property. 

Damages – Personal injury. The judge awarded the claimant damages for personal injuries arising out of a road traffic accident in which he was seriously injured. In particular, he considered the fact that the claimant had passed the United Kingdom citizenship test (the UKCT) without assistance in his findings on the claimant's significant cognitive deficits. The second defendant appealed and the claimant cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considering the UKCT pass in context with all the other evidence and in its proper place, dismissed the appeals. 

Criminal Law – Voluntary bill. The prosecution applied for leave to prefer a voluntary bill of indictment, pursuant to s 2(2)(b) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933, against a defendant, also known as Gary Glitter. The defendant objected to the addition of two counts which were founded on facts that were the substance of a charge of indecent assault, in respect of which a magistrate had previously ordered a stay; a decision that had been upheld by the Divisional Court. The Queen's Bench Division, allowing the application, held that the facts had not justified a stay. The defendant was able to have a fair trial and there was jurisdiction to prefer the voluntary bill of indictment.