Latest Cases

Claimant companies owning land – Claimants leasing land to third party. The claimant companies owned land that they leased to a company which sought to carry out preliminary drilling in preparation for 'fracking' excavations. The second and fifth defendants were individuals staying on the land as part of a protest against fracking. The claimants applied for possession of the land. The Chancery Division held that the claimants owned the land in question, and that the rights of the defendants under the European Convention on Human Rights had not been infringed by the claimants' application for possession. 

Extradition – Extradition hearing. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the district judge's decision to order his extradition pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued by the respondent Italian judicial authority. The offence charged had not necessarily been an offence under the law of England and Wales and accordingly, the dual criminality requirement of s 64(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 had not been satisfied to the relevant standard. Further, in the instant case the judgment of the European Court in Torreggiani v Italy (2013) app 43517, 8 January 2013, together with the acknowledgement of a continuing systemic problem in the Italian prison system, had rebutted the presumption of compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights which would normally arise in the case of a member state. That had raised substantial grounds for believing that there had been a real risk of treatment contrary to art 3 of the Convention and the judicial authority had not produced sufficient material to dispel that belief. 

Trust and trustee – Remuneration of trustee. In considering whether the remuneration charged to the family trusts by the first defendant professional trustee had been reasonable, the Chancery Division held that the first defendant had discharged the burden of proving an agreement as to his hourly rate and that the claimant's knowledge of the charges had amounted to acquiescence. Accordingly, the first defendant's hourly rate and charges relating to company specific activities had been reasonable, but a discount of 7.5% was applied to all charges to reflect charges for excess administration. 

Employment – Continuity. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the appellant's appeal held that, applying settled law, a transferring company had not been under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner where there had been no such appointment and that, accordingly, there had been a transfer of undertakings between the appellant and the transferring company under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following the acceptance of a CPR Pt 36 offer by the defendant on a dilapidations claim arising from a sub-lease, the Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court rejected a claim by the claimant for costs on an indemnity basis. The court held that in the circumstances of the instant case, the claimant had not complied with the Dilapidations Pre-Action Protocol, and as such the 'no loss' defence should have been seen in context. The judge held that he could not decide on disputed versions of events pertaining to the conduct of expert witnesses and it was doubtful whether the mediation proposed by the claimant would have succeeded. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal against the rejection of her discrimination and victimisation claims by the employment tribunal, held that on the factual material, despite any error in relation to the comparator approach, the tribunal had reached the correct decision. 

Patent – European Patent Office. Samsung applied for an adjournment of its appeal against the revocation of its patents pending the determination of its applications to the European Patent Office for amendment of the patent claims. Apple sought an order requiring Samsung to elect between the appeal and the amendment applications. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in granting the adjournment, held that there was no prohibition on the filing of an amendment application between a first instance judgment and appeal. Apple's application fell to be dismissed because it could not be said Samsung's pursuit of the amendment applications necessarily meant that the appeal proceedings constituted an abuse of process. 

Police – Negligence. In dismissing the claimant's appeal against the recorder's findings that immunity against negligence claims applied to police officers engaged in the apprehension of criminals, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the three-stage test in Caparo v Dickman ([1990] 2 AC 605) applied. In the circumstances, it had not been fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care, and in any event, the police had not acted negligently. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Directive (EC) 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States), amending Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 and repealing various other European Union directives. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr O and the Netherlands Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum (the Minister), on the one hand, and between the Minister and Mr B, on the other, concerning the decisions refusing to grant them a certificate of lawful residence as a family member of a European Union citizen in the Netherlands 

Road traffic – Traffic sign. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the decisions upholding the issue of a penalty charge notice for performing a prohibited 'U turn' following the execution of a three point turn by the claimant.