Latest Cases

Extradition – Extradition order. The respondent judicial authority sought the appellant Lithuanian national's extradition pursuant to a European arrest warrant in order to stand trial for the theft of £14,000. The appellant had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and relied on his family for support. There was a risk that he would attempt suicide if extradited. The district judge ordered the appellant's extradition and he appealed. Dismissing the appeal, the Administrative Court held that the appellant could not establish that his extradition would be oppressive due to his mental condition as there had been no evidence that he would not receive treatment in prison in Lithuania. Further, the appellant's extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with his right to family life in the circumstances. 

Employment – Employment tribunal. The employee brought various complaints of race and disability discrimination before the employment tribunal. An employment judge struck out a number of those complaints as out of time and the employee appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the judge had erred in his characterisation of one of the complaints as being solely a matter of race discrimination. Save on that point, the appeal would be dismissed as there had been no continuing act or state of affairs such as to mean that the other complaints had been in time. 

Race relations – Discrimination. The employee, a deputy head teacher at the employer primary school, had had a poor working relationship with the headteacher. The employee had accidentally sent an email to 20 members of staff setting out her grievances and referring to the headteacher as a racist. In dismissing the employee's appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal's judgment was to be read in its entirety: its conclusions had been sufficiently reasoned. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 9 and 11 of Council Directive (EEC) 92/43 (on the conversation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora). The request had been made in proceedings between Cascina Tre Pini Ss (Cascina) and the Ministry of the Environment and the Protection of the Land and the Sea and others concerning the procedure for review of the status of site of Community importance of a site including a plot of land of which Cascina was the owner. 

European Union – Telecommunications. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 52(3) of Directive (EC) 2007/64 (on payment services in the internal market). The request had been made in proceedings between the Consumer Information Association and T-Mobile Austria GmbH (T-Mobile), concerning T-Mobile's pricing practice of requiring its clients to pay additional charges where payment was made through online banking or by way of paper transfer order. 

Medical treatment – Human reproduction. The claimant sought funding for oocyte cryopreservation before she began chemotherapy. The defendant refused and the claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, rejected the claimant's main argument that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's strong recommendation that oocyte cryopreservation should be offered to those in a like case to the claimant was a relevant consideration. It further rejected her claims of gender discrimination. 

Income tax – Earnings from employment. The taxpayer banks (UBS and Deutsche Bank) had set up schemes to pay employees' bonuses in such a way that they could avoid paying income tax and national insurance contributions. The schemes involved 'restricted securities' and so took advantage of the tax exemption benefits of Ch 2 of Pt 7 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners determined that income tax and national insurance had been payable. The First-tier Tribunal (Tax) dismissed the banks' appeals. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) allowed UBS's appeal and upheld the scheme, while DB's appeal was dismissed as having failed to meet the requirements of s 429 of the Act. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that both schemes had fallen within the regime under Ch 2 of the Act so had been eligible for the corresponding tax benefits. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant alleged that she had been sexually assaulted whilst in immigration detention and made various claims against the immigration removal centre, Serco. In the claim against the Home Office there was a report of the event in the immigration centre. The legal department of the Guardian newspaper wrote to Serco seeking the investigation report. When Serco refused to disclose the report, the Guardian applied under CPR 31.22(1) for a declaration that the claimant might lawfully supply the Guardian with the report. The Queen's Bench Division held that it was in the public interest that the Guardian should be allowed access to the report and should be free to publish its contents. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Jamaican national had been convicted of murder in the United Kingdom. The defendant Secretary of State decided to deport him and refused his claim for refugee and human rights protection on the basis of homosexuality. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) found in the claimant's favour and the Secretary of State appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the UT had been correct to find no error of law in the FTT's finding that the claimant was a homosexual and had not erred in concluding that the claimant had succeeded in rebutting the presumption of dangerousness under s 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union annulled part of judgment of the General Court of the European Union, in which it had rejected actions by Areva SA and the Alstom group companies regarding a decision by the European Commission finding the existence of a cartel in gas insulted switchgear and imposing fines calculated on a joint and several liability basis.