Latest Cases

Criminal law – Murder. The defendants, aged between 16 and 18, appealed against their convictions for of murder and attempted murder. The second defendant further appealed against his sentence of detention at Her Majesty's pleasure with a minimum term of 19 years for murder and 14 years' detention in a young offender institution for attempted murder. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the appeals against conviction. However, it held that an age difference of between 18 months and two years in the case of teenagers was significant, and the second defendant's significantly younger age had warranted a minimum term of 17 years. 

Misrepresentation – Fraudulent misrepresentation. The claimants brought proceedings against the defendants, submitting that they had been induced to invest €100m with the first defendant company as the result of fraudulent misrepresentations. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the misrepresentations had occurred and that there had been no contributory negligence. The claimants were entitled to rescission of the contract and damages. 

Construction contract – Adjudication – Adjudicator's jurisdiction. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal in an action in which the appellants resisted enforcement of an adjudicator's award, the court held that the adjudicator's determination was in respect of an issue which arose from the contract on which the referral to arbitration proceeded, and accordingly rejected the contention that the determination was ultra vires because the adjudicator had not had requisite jurisdiction. 

Extradition – Habeas corpus. Following the delay in her extradition, the claimant applied for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. The Divisional Court held that the Extradition Act 2003 did not permit the right of a requested person to be discharged to be circumvented by agreeing a later starting date after the expiry of the period identified in s 36(3)(a) of the Act, unless reasonable cause was shown. Accordingly, a writ of habeas would be permitted with the result that there would have to be a hearing of the issues which arose under s 36(8) of the Act. 

Costs – Order for costs. The claimant bank alleged that a Ukrainian businessman, T, had assisted its former chairman, Mr Ablyazov in putting assets defrauded from the bank, out of its reach. The bank applied to vary an order that the costs of compliance by T with a Norwich Pharmacal disclosure order be paid by the bank, to provide that T should pay those costs himself. The Chancery Division, allowing the application in part, held that it was not only where a claimant established at a trial that a Norwich Pharmacal respondent was implicated in the defendant's wrongdoing that it was appropriate to depart from the normal order in relation to costs. T was entitled to recover 25% of the costs of preparing affidavits. However, he was ordered to pay the bank's costs of a cross-examination exercise. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing them indefinite leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the original, as opposed to the reconsidered, decision had been the relevant decision. That decision had been one which the Secretary of State had been entitled to reach, as the relevant time for judging whether para 134 of the Immigration Rules had been complied with had been the time of the decision, not the time of the original making of the application. 

Housing – Homeless person. The appellant appealed against a review decision made by the local authority that she was not homeless. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the authority had had power to substitute an adverse decision on different grounds, namely, that the appellant was not homeless instead of the original decision that she had not been in priority need. Further, it had not erred in failing to carry out a hazard assessment or failed to look to the future when considering whether the appellant had been homeless. 

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that where the contractor under a public contract was a non-profit association which, at the time of the award of the contract, had as partners not only public sector entities but also private social solidarity institutions carrying out non-profit activities, the requirement for 'similar control', established by the case-law of the Court in order that the award of a public contract could be regarded as an in-house operation, was not met, so that Directive (EC) 2004/18 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts) applied. 

Civil procedure – Pleadings – Relevancy and specification. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuer sued for £4.25m, claiming that was the sum agreed to be paid to him for his part in securing the return of a stolen painting under an agreement made by an undercover police officer using the assumed name 'John Craig' acting on the defender's behalf, the court, allowing a proof before answer, held that it was not clear that the pursuer's case that John Craig had actual authority from the defender to make the agreement was bound to fail, or that his case was bound to fail on grounds of illegality or public policy. 

Warrant – Search warrant. The claimant challenged the lawfulness of a search warrant issued by the defendant magistrates court and executed on his home and business premises. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that the warrant had not identified, as far as had been practicable, the articles to be sought in the search and that the information in the warrant had been deficient. Accordingly, it was quashed, and declarations as to the unlawfulness of the warrant and the search were made.