Latest Cases

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against an order for her extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of two years' imprisonment for misappropriation of the equivalent of about £6,000. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the interference with the family lives of the appellant and her children would not be necessary in a democratic society, even though it would be in pursuit of a legitimate aim. 

Divorce – Foreign decree. The husband and wife were both Russians and were married there in 2002. They went through the formalities for divorce required by the law of the Russian Federation at the Consulate of the Russian Federation in London. When the husband sought to marry his fiancée in the United Kingdom, the authorities took the point that the divorce was not recognised. The husband applied to the court for a declaration of marital status. The Family Court held that, under ss 44 and 45 of the Family Law Act 1986, the divorce was not recognised in the United Kingdom and, therefore, the parties remained married under English law. 

European Union – Taxation. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 90 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax). The request had been made in proceedings between Almos Agrárkülkereskedelmi Kft (Almos) and the Hungarian National Tax and Customs Office, Regional Tax Directorate for Central Hungary, concerning the latter's refusal to allow the correction of invoices which Almos had made with a view to obtaining a reduction of the taxable amount for value added tax (VAT) because of the failure of a sale. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. The claimant received £4,000 PSLA after suffering a laceration to the ulna side of his right hand. The wound healed over the course of a month but the residual symptoms, including restriction in movement in his little finger, and a 3 cm scar were permanent. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 14(2)(b) of Directive (EC) 2003/71 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of arts 22(2) and 29(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) 809/2004). The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Timmel and Aviso Zeta AG (Aviso Zeta) concerning termination of a contract by which Mr Timmel had subscribed for 40,000 units of the security 'Dragon FG Garant' offered for sale through Aviso Zeta. 

Costs – Assessment. The applicant coach company had been a defendant in a personal injury action and had its costs assessed on a detailed basis. It applied for permission to appeal on the basis that the judge had misapplied CPR 44 of the old version of the rules. The Queen's Bench Division held that in assessing costs, a court could consider on an item by item basis whether a particular item of costs was proportionate and necessary even if costs were proportionate on a global basis. Permission to appeal was refused. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Council Directive (EEC) 93/13 (on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the principles of EU law relating to consumer protection and a balance in the parties' rights and obligations) should be interpreted as meaning that statutory and regulatory provisions of a member state, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, were excluded from their scope, when there was no contractual term altering the effect or ambit of those provisions. 

Company – Register of members. The appellant was a shareholder in the respondent companies. He made a request to gain access to the register of members of the companies. The Registrar of the Companies Court made a 'no access order' pursuant to s 117(3) of the Companies Act 2006 and a Pelling order in respect of undertakings made by the companies. The appellant was ordered to pay the companies' indemnity costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, explained the meaning of 'proper purpose' in s 117(3), gave guidance on that section and confirmed that Pelling orders were not incompatible with it. The appellant's appeal was dismissed in respect of the no access order, but his appeal was allowed in respect of the indemnity costs order. 

Sale of land – Misrepresentation. The claimant was induced to purchase land from a company, TPP. The land transpired to be near-worthless. He brought proceedings against the defendant solicitor, who had acted for TPP. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, while the defendant did not owe the claimant a duty of care, misrepresentations had been made to the claimant by TPP, and the defendant was a joint tortfeasor with it. The claimant would be able to recover all the money that he had paid for the land. 

Costs – Litigant in person. The Bar Standards Board sought judicial review of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court's decision awarding the interested party non-practising barrister costs. The Divisional Court held that the application of CPR 48.6 should have led to the conclusion that the interested party had not been entitled to charge for the expenditure of her own professional skill and judgment. However, the CPR were not even persuasive. Accordingly, the interested party's expenditure of her own time and skill could be compensated, and was assessed at £60 per hour.