Latest Cases

Extradition – Hearing. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the decision to extradite him pursuant to s 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. The district judge had been correct in his conclusion that the respondent was a judicial authority within the meaning of s 2 of the Act. The judgment in Ministry of Justice, Republic of Lithuania v Bucnys [2013] UKSC 71 could not be read as seeking to cast any doubt upon the conclusion reached in Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] 4 All ER 1249 that a public prosecutor within a member state was a judicial authority. The effect of Bucnys had to be that the conclusion reached in Assange that a public authority was a judicial authority remained valid. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in relation to invalidity proceedings between Gianda Blasco, SA (Gandia) and Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture, Lda (Sachi) concerning the application by Gandia for a declaration of invalidity in respect of a Community design held by Sachi intended to be applied to armchairs and loungers. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, contending that s 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 offended arts 5, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Divisional Court dismissed her claim and she appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that art 5 of the Convention had no application and no breach of art 14 of the Convention had been established. Further, s 60 of the Act was not arbitrary, it was in accordance with the law and justified pursuant to art 8(2) of the Convention. 

Local government – Council tax. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant student's application for judicial review of the defendant Local Authority's decision that the claimant had been a part time student and liable to council tax. The claimant had not been a student within the meaning of the Council Tax Discounts Disregards Order 1992, SI 1992/548 and the Local Government Finance Act 1992. 

Personal Injury. The Claimant suffered neck pain from a whiplash injury and travel anxiety as a result of a road traffic accident. She was awarded damages of £2,000 for pain suffering and loss of amenity. 

Practice – Family proceedings. In an application for financial relief the Family Division held in a preliminary ruling that shares in a company remained with the husband and were available to any creditors, accordingly, the intervener's claim for a declaration that the shares were held on trust for him failed. 

Costs – Assessment. The respondent solicitor rendered various bills to the appellant company. The bills were sent for detailed assessment and a master made such an assessment pursuant to s 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The master considered that the schedule supplied consequent on a court order did not comply with that order and stayed the assessment. The appellant appealed. The Queen's Bench Division held that the master had been entitled to have come to the decision to which he had. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) made a number of rulings regarding the entitlement of the landlord of a block of apartments to recover the cost of gas supplied to heat a number of the apartments under the terms of a lease. In dismissing the landlord's appeal, the tribunal held that the true construction of the lease would not lead a reasonable person to conclude that it embraced the provision of heat to individual apartments through the common heating system. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union ruled on two separate actions brought by Diset, SA (Diset) against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning two sets of opposition proceedings between Diset and Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Mega), in respect of Mega's respective applications to register a figurative mark 'MAGNEXT' and a word sign 'MAGNEXT' as Community trade marks. 

Practice – Civil litigation. There was an established and lengthy record of incompetence, impropriety, lack of integrity and abuse of the rights of consumers shown by the claimant and his companies. Although there had been informal directions that all proceedings brought by the companies in the County Court for recovery of money or possession from borrowers be brought in or, if already started, be transferred to the London Mercantile Court, no formal order to that effect had been made. The Mercantile Court made a formal order to that effect.