Latest Cases

Extradition – Extradition order. The respondent judicial authority sought the appellant Lithuanian national's extradition pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant so that she could stand trial in relation to an allegation of assisting an 'armed robbery', said to have occurred in 1996. The district judge ordered the appellant's extradition and she appealed. Allowing the appeal, the Administrative Court held that, in the circumstances, the judge had been wrong to conclude that it would not be unjust to order the appellant's extradition by reason of the passage of time under s 14 of the Extradition Act 2003. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Ms Sofia Golam against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Derby Cycle Werke GmbH and Ms Golam concerning Ms Golam's application for registration of a figurative sign 'FOCUS' as a Community trade mark. 

Practice – Service out of the jurisdiction. The First Defendant, a Dubai company, sold two cargoes of oil to the claimant. The second and third defendant companies, which were established in Dubai and Sharjah respectively, claimed title to the oil. The claimant brought proceedings in the English court for a declaration that the first defendant had good title to the oil and had passed good title to it. The claimant was granted permission to serve the first to third defendants out of the jurisdiction. The third defendant applied to set aside that order, contending that the appropriate forum was Fujairah, where there were civil proceedings concerning the parties. The Commercial Court granted the application where, at the time of the permission application, Fujairah was clearly a more appropriate forum. 

Prison – Prison conditions. The appellant non-smoker prisoner appealed against the decision of the High Court to refuse his application for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision to require him to share a cell with a smoking prisoner for seven days. Dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had not been wrong to refuse permission. The appellant's experience had not been of an intensity, duration and effect to amount to interference with his rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There had been no clear and consistent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights to suggest otherwise. A similar conclusion could be reached in relation to art 14 of the Convention. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Annex I, point 14, of Directive (EC) 2005/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 (concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market) should be interpreted as meaning that a pyramid promotional scheme constituted an unfair commercial practice only where such a scheme required the consumer to give financial consideration, regardless of its amount, for the opportunity to receive compensation that was derived primarily from the introduction of other consumers into the scheme rather than from the sale or consumption of products. 

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 (on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). The request had been made in proceedings between Hi Hotel HCF SARL, established in Nice (France), and Mr Spoering, residing in Cologne (Germany), concerning a claim for an order to cease an infringement of copyright and for compensation. 

Insolvency – Transactions at an undervalue. The liquidator had applied to recover money paid to the respondent company secretary as constituting transactions at an undervalue. The circuit judge found that the respondent had rebutted the statutory presumption that the company had not been insolvent at the time that the payments had been made. The High Court found that the presumption had not been rebutted and made its own findings on the solvency of the company at the relevant time. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered the established law on when a company was deemed to be unable to pay its debts, within the meaning of s 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986, and dismissed the respondent's appeal. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in so far as the Board had rejected as inadmissible the opposition based on art 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (on the Community trade mark) with regard to the signs relied on by Debonair Trading Internacional Ldª so far as the United Kingdom and Ireland were concerned. The action was dismissed as to the remainder. 

Public procurement – Tender assessment process – Remedies. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuer challenged the defender's decision to appoint Capita plc as preferred bidder in relation to the procurement exercise concerning the Scottish Wide Area Network (SWAN), complaining about non-disclosure of an aspect of the scoring of the bids, the court, having concluded that there was a breach of the transparency requirement in the relevant regulations, refused to an grant order setting aside the decision to award the SWAN contract to Capita, and instead granted an order allowing the contract to be concluded, thus limiting pursuer's remedy to damages 

Divorce – Appeal. The wife obtained leave to bring financial provision proceedings under the Family Proceedings Act 1984 despite the fact that she and her husband had concluded an agreement in New Zealand in 'full and final settlement' of the parties' financial issues. The husband applied to strike out the leave granted. The Family Division held that it had jurisdiction to hear the wife's application but that leave should not be granted because of the existence of the New Zealand agreement.