Latest Cases

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellants appealed against orders for their extradition and costs orders imposed. The Divisional Court held that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to determine an appeal from a costs order where a person had challenged that order as a part of pursuing an unsuccessful appeal against an extradition order. However, it did have jurisdiction to vary or quash a costs order when the person had successfully appealed an extradition order pursuant to ss 26 and 27 of the Extradition Act 2003. The costs order against the first appellant would be quashed, as he was successful on his appeal, but not that against the unsuccessful second defendant. 

Costs – Order for costs. The claimants brought a single claim alleging that the defendant companies had infringed their patent. The court in earlier proceedings found in favour of the claimants. The claimants contended that they were entitled to a sum in excess of the sum capped for proceedings in the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court and contended that CPR 63.17A had to be taken to mean that the cap of £500,000 applied separately to each defendant. The court held that the cap of £500,000 was absolute, unless the parties agreed otherwise and the court had no discretion to lift it. Accordingly, the cap applied to the claim against both defendants. 

Immigration – Detention. In the case of R (Refugee Legal Centre) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2004] All ER (D) 201 (Nov), the court held that the Detained Fast Track system, which provided an accelerated method of dealing with straightforward asylum claims, operated unfairly, and hence unlawfully, but only in specific ways. The appellant action group appealed against that finding. The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been correct not to have given any relief in addition to the declaratory order which he had made. 

Drugs – Drug trafficking. The claimant applied for a certificate of inadequacy on the basis that a Spanish villa in which he had an interest was not realisable, as legal proceedings concerning squatters at the property meant it could not be sold. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had not shown that it was impossible to realise the Spanish villa. It was foreseeable that there would be a decision of the Spanish court which would determine whether or not the villa was a realisable asset of the claimant. 

Contract – Construction. The proceedings concerned an appeal relating to a contractual expert determination of an amount to be paid for the sale of a share in a company. The judge declared that the determination had not been valid and enforceable. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that, on the true construction of the agreement governing the sale of the shares, the judge had been right to find that the expert had erred in considering that he was prevented from embarking on the task of applying the correct policy as to the calculation of liabilities. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Sri Lankan national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse him leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, examined key points which emerged from the case law concerning the question as to whether exceptional circumstances justified leave to remain outside the Immigration Rules in order to satisfy art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It held that the decision letter had contained no indication or reasoning which demonstrated that the Secretary of State had considered the exercise of discretion, the question of exceptional circumstances or the question of proportionality. 

Tort – Occupiers liability. The deceased brought a claim against the defendant for negligence at common law for the consequences of contracting mesothelioma. Considering the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 the Queen's Bench Division held that the claim against the defendant failed on both in respect of the exposure to asbestos that the deceased experienced in the defendant's store in 1967, and in stores subsequently, whilst inspecting store premises. 

Costs – Order for costs. In a dispute concerning costs, the claimant was required to file Further Information, which it failed to file on time as the result of an oversight. The claimant submitted that, among other things, there had been no breach of the CPR in failing to provide the Further Information at the commencement of the detailed assessment proceedings. The Chancery Division held that, although there had been breach, the claimant's appeal against the finding of the costs judge would be allowed on the basis that an incorrect sanction had been applied. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The High Court had granted a freezing injunction over assets held by companies incorporated in Singapore and in respect of which the United States of America had commenced proceedings in its own jurisdiction in respect of allegations of money laundering. The injunction was granted pursuant to s 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the companies' appeal as it had been inexpedient for the judge to have granted the injunction under that section in circumstances where the United Kingdom authorities had expressly stated that they were not prepared to make an application for a prohibition order pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005. 

Injunction – Interim injunction. The claimant son of a recording artist sought an injunction to stop publication of a semi-autobiographical book, written by his father. A judge dismissed the claim on various grounds. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed the appeal on the questions whether the claimant had a cause of action for misuse of private information or negligence. However, it held that the claimant had sufficiently favourable prospects on the facts of the case of establishing at trial his claim that the publication by the defendants of the work in its present form would constitute intentional conduct causing him psychiatric harm to justify an injunction restraining publication of parts of the work pending trial.