Latest Cases

The parties disagreed on whether the respondent council was obliged to remove its alterations and reinstate the sub-let premises on the expiry of the sub-lease when the request to do so was made orally and not put in writing before the sub-lease expired. The Extra Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session held that writing was required and the appellant appealed. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, held that neither the sub-lease nor a minute of agreement authorising alterations to the sub-let premises had required such request to be in writing. 

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 107 of Council Regulation (EEC) 574/72 (laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community), as amended. The request had been made in proceedings between Mrs Wagener and the German Federal Employment Agency concerning the grant of dependent child allowance in Germany. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against an order for extradition to Poland to serve an 18 month prison sentence for drug offences and criminal damage. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the European arrest warrant had contained sufficient details of the circumstances of the underlying offences to enable the appellant sensibly to understand what he had been convicted of and sentenced for. Further, the argument that he would be able to make an application for early release on his return to Poland provided no basis for allowing the appeal. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The claimant companies brought proceedings, claiming that their trademark for a battery-charging tool had been infringed by products sold by the defendant companies. The defendants contended that the trademark had been invalidly registered. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that, on the evidence, the trade mark had been validly registered and had been infringed by the defendants. 

Practice – Counterclaim. The parties had been engaged in proceedings in different jurisdictions before entering into an exclusive jurisdiction agreement that conferred jurisdiction on the English courts. Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky had issued proceedings in the Commercial Court whereas the bank and Mr Savelyev issued and served proceedings in the Chancery Division. The Chancery Division disapplied the Russian limitation period pursuant to s 2(2) of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 but dismissed the Arkhangelskys' application for an anti-enforcement injunction to prevent enforcement of the judgments previously obtained against them. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had, in the circumstances, been correct to grant the anti-enforcement injunction, but had erred in refusing to grant the anti-enforcement injunction. 

Insolvency – Administration order. The Registrar of Companies sought to challenge a court order, granting the joint administrators' application to have specified information removed from a statement of proposals for achieving the purpose of the administration which they had filed with the Registrar. The Chancery Division held that the Registrar could give effect to the order by exercising his power to remove material from the register pursuant to s 1094(1) of the Companies Act 2006. On the true construction of r 2.33A of the Insolvency Rules, SI 1986/1925, the jurisdiction of the court to make an order limiting disclosure of the specified part of the statement, as otherwise required by para 49(4) of Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, was not exhausted the moment the statement had been sent by administrators of a company. 

Social security – Benefit – Employment Support Allowance. Court of Session: Allowing an appeal by the Secretary of State in a case which concerned the interpretation of a regulation which determined whether or not person was capable of 'work related activity', the court considered that descriptor 13 of Sch 3 to the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008 must apply if a claimant suffered from a mental disorder which had the consequence that, for the majority of the time, he could not engage in social contact. 

Local government – Councillor. The claimant long-standing local councillor challenged the Adjudication Panel for Wales' (the tribunal) decisions that he had breached the local council's codes of conduct, and disqualifying him for two years and six months. The Administrative Court held that the tribunal had correctly applied the civil standard of proof, but had erred in its factual findings with respect to two of the 14 alleged breaches. Further, the tribunal had imposed a manifestly excessive period of disqualification and it would be substituted by a period of 18 months. 

Parent and child – Adoption. Court of Session: In an appeal by the natural mother of a 7½-year old girl, whose foster parents were seeking to adopt her, the sheriff having dispensed with the mother's consent and granted the adoption order, the court held that at the point of deciding the threshold issue of whether the 'parental incapacity ground' applied, considerations under art 8 of the Human Rights Convention did not arise, so the sheriff could not be criticised for not having had regard to them at that stage, and in so far as the appellant might have been trying to argue a wider point the criticisms that were made should be rejected. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to grant a European Economic Area family permit and entry clearance to enable the second claimant Kenyan national to enter and reside in the United Kingdom with her husband, the first claimant, and their three children. The Administrative Court stayed those proceedings pending determination of the claimants' statutory appeal and the Court of Justice of the European Union's determination on the court's reference in R (on the application of McCarthy and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2012] All ER (D) 372 (Nov)), concerning whether the UK's approach to residence cards issued by other member states was lawful.