Latest Cases

Library – Public library. The defendant local authority engaged in public consultation on its proposals to reduce library services within the county. The authority also received alternative proposals, which were rejected. The authority subsequently adopted the proposals it had put out to consultation, subject to minor amendments. The claimant, a library user, sought judicial review of the authority's decision. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the consultation process had been flawed and quashed the decision. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The respondent judicial authority sought the extradition of the appellant from the United Kingdom to face prosecution in Lithuania for dangerous driving, alleged to have been committed some four years prior to the present proceedings. The district judge ordered the appellant's extradition, which he appealed. The Administrative Court, in allowing his appeal, held that extradition would be a disproportionate interference with the rights of the appellant and his young family, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Libel and slander – Damages. The claimants, the owners and operators of a money transfer business in London, contended that the defendant channel had broadcast a TV programme that was defamatory of them. Judgment was entered for the claimants for damages to be assessed and for the determination of whether the claimants were entitled to any other remedies. The Queen's Bench Division held that in respect of general damages, the correct sum for the defendant to pay was £20,000 to the first claimant and £20,000 to the second claimant. 

Practice – Personal injuries action. The claimant was an eight-year-old girl with profound disabilities. Her injuries had been caused by the defendants' admitted negligence. The parties had reached agreement as to general damage. There was, however, a very substantial dispute in relation to future accommodation. The claimant sought the sum of £1.6m by way of interim payments in respect of accomodation. The Queen's Bench Division following the law allowed the application. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The defendant had given two personal guarantees to the claimant bank as security for loans made to his companies. When the bank called in the loans, the companies did not pay and the bank sought to enforce the personal guarantees. The defendant did not pay. The bank commenced proceedings and obtained summary judgment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal and granted him conditional leave to defend the claim. The defendant's defence, although improbable, was not wholly implausible and the judge had erred in having found that the defendant had had no real prospect of establishing those defences. 

Contract – Enforceability. A winning lottery ticket was purchased. The purchase involved both the claimant and the defendant. The claimant claimed that there had been no discussion or agreement as to sharing the ticket. The defendant disputed that claim. The Queen's Bench Division, held that on the facts the parties had entered into a contract to jointly play the lottery on an equal basis. It was a term of the contract that any winnings should be shared equally or alternatively that such a term should be implied. The term represented the obvious, but unexpressed intention of the parties and that it was also necessary to give business efficacy to the contract. The whole point of playing the lottery jointly was to hopefully share the winnings jointly. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 16 of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 (on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment), as amended by Council Directive (EC) 2006/18, and arts 154 and 157 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax). The request had been made in proceedings between Equoland Soc. coop. arl (Equoland) and the Livorno Customs Agency (Italy) involving a decision of the latter requiring Equoland to pay VAT on the importation of goods not physically placed in a tax warehouse, even though Equoland had already paid that tax under the reverse charge mechanism. 

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. The Professional Conduct Committee of the first respondent General Chiropractic Council found that the second respondent had been guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and imposed a six-month suspension order, without provisions for any review. The appellant Professional Standards Authority referred the case to court. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that there was plainly evidence which supported additional allegations of dishonesty. Further, the appeal against the sanction would be allowed, primarily because of the lack of provision for review. 

Estoppel – Convention. The claimant company's administrators issued proceedings against the defendant arising out of its failure to pay US$65m under a foreign exchange transaction, which had mistakenly been paid to the claimant's parent company. The defendant relied on defences including estoppel and waiver, discharge and satisfaction. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the parties had been acting on the understanding that the transaction had been closed. Accordingly, the defendant had established estoppel by convention, but other legal doctrines, including estoppel by representation, acquiescence and silence, might well be equally applicable. However, the discharge and satisfaction defences had not been made out. 

Criminal law – Trial. Four of the seven defendants charged with conspiracy to supply heroin applied to dismiss the charge, which was refused. However, the judge subsequently ruled that six defendants had no case to answer and the prosecution appealed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the difference between the rulings did not matter, as the position at the close of the prosecution case had been dispositive. The judge had made an error of principle or had reached a conclusion not reasonably open to him, as the facts had been sufficient for the prosecution to answer the no case submissions at the close of its case.