Latest Cases

Extradition – Hearing. The district judge ordered the appellant's extradition to Poland and also made an order for costs, in the sum of £500, against the appellant. The appellant appealed both the extradition order and the order for costs. Although the appeal against extradition was dismissed, the appeal against the order for costs was allowed, on the grounds that the court had jurisdiction to vary the order and the order had been neither just nor reasonable. 

Value added tax – Input tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by Earthshine Ltd against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (FTT) to uphold the decision taken by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to refuse Earthshine credit for input tax. The tribunal decided that, reading the FTT's decision as a whole, it was impossible to say that it had reached irrational or perverse conclusions, or that it had failed to explain its conclusions. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held, as unduly lenient, a minimum term of 15 years imposed on a 20-year-old offender with previous convictions, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, following conviction for murder by stabbing. The minimum term of 15 years was set aside and substituted by one of 22 years, less time spent on remand 

European Union – State aids. The defendant local authority made a £14.4m loan to the first interested party. The claimants issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the decision to make the loan on grounds including that it was unlawful state aid not notified to the European Commission. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the loan had not been state aid, as it could have been entered into on the terms agreed by any rational private market operator. 

Arbitration – Costs. The claimant company issued proceedings under the Arbitration Act 1996, challenging an arbitration award made in the defendant company's favour. The defendant sought security for costs and security for sums due under the second award. The Commercial Court upheld the application for security for costs, as it was just to do so in all the circumstances. However, there was no relevant prejudice so as to justify an order for security for the sums due under the second award. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employees brought a test claim before the employment tribunal, contending that members of the black and minority ethnic group suffered discrimination in that they were more likely to fail an assessment leading to higher grades in the civil service. The employment tribunal (tribunal) held that the employees had to show, not only systematic disadvantage, but the reason for failing the assessment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, allowing the employees' appeal, held that the tribunal had erred in asking that a further matter be established by an employee, for which s 19 of the Equality Act 2010 did not specifically provide. 

Practice – Extension of time. The claimant company brought proceedings against the defendant bank, contending that the bank had made unauthorised transferrals of its money. The claimant was given permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction. The defendant did not challenge the service at the time, but later sought permission from the English court for an extension of time to apply to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. The Chancery Division held that no good reason had been shown for the failure to apply in time for an extension of time, and dismissed the application. 

Nationality – British nationality. The claimant's application for naturalisation had been refused on the basis that he lacked good character due to his deception. He sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the claimant had failed to establish that the defendant Secretary of State had erred in law in her consideration of deception and good character when considering the naturalisation application. Further, the Secretary of State had not breached the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Practice – Interest. A judgment was given for the claimant company in the Russian court, but later set aside. However, the principal sums came to be paid, because the claimant identified assets of the defendant company within the Dutch jurisdiction. The awards did not mention interest. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, there was no ex nihilo nil fit principle which precluded the enforcement of the awards. The interest on the awards would not be enforceable in the Russian courts, but was in England. However, whether it ought to be awarded as a matter of discretion was for later determination. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants claimed damages and an injunction for libel, slander, malicious falsehood, breach of confidence, breach of contract and conspiracy on the basis that the defendants were alleged to have accused the claimants of trickery and defrauding their clients through a publication which it was alleged the defendant's were responsible. There was a failure to file a defence and an order was made debarring the defendants from defending. The first and third defendants applied for relief from sanctions. The Queen's Bench Division considering CPR 3.9 held that the application by the first defendant for relief against sanctions would be refused. The application by the third defendant for relief against sanctions would be allowed.