Latest Cases

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant's extradition to Poland was ordered to stand trial for fraud, allegedly committed between December 1994 and February 1995. He appealed on the grounds that the judge was wrong to have decided that he was a fugitive from justice and due to the delay. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to reach the conclusion that the appellant was a fugitive and that the delay in dealing with the offences had been undesirable. Accordingly, the instant case was not one where it would be proportionate to return. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The case concerned a collision action between two vessels, where the claimant, the owner of one vessel, brought proceedings against the defendant, the owner of the other vessel. The Admiralty Court allowed the defendant's application to strike out the claimant's claim and the defendant's counterclaim in circumstances where there had been an extraordinary and culpable delay of seven years in the proceedings which resulted in prejudice against the defendant and no possibility of a fair trial. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant's extradition to Poland was ordered to serve a sentence for stealing and domestic burglary committed in 2000 and 2001. The Polish court had suspended the term of two years' imprisonment for four years. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the appellant's extradition would be disproportionate due to the very long time after which to find that the original suspended sentence was to be activated and given the fact that the Polish authorities had decided that the offences had not merited an immediate custodial sentence. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant's extradition to Poland was ordered to serve a sentence for attempted burglary committed in March 1996, and to face trial for appropriation and stealing, allegedly committed in February 1998 and July 2000. He appealed on grounds including delay. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that return would be disproportionate, taking into account the nature of the offences in question and of the substantial delay, coupled with the problems relating to his wife's mental condition and the needs of his child. 

Solicitor – Payment of costs by solicitor personally. The claimants instructed solicitors to bring claims following a vehicle collision with the defendant. They were subsequently advised that there was no reasonable possibility of success and of their liability for costs. The Liverpool County Court considered making a wasted costs order. It held that the retainer letter had been such as to induce potential claimants to sign up in the belief that they would have no liability for costs, which had involved impropriety and had caused the claimants to incur unnecessary costs. Accordingly, the solicitors would be responsible for 50% of the defendant's costs. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Commercial Court dismissed the second defendant company's application to set aside permission for the claimant company to serve the claim on the second defendant outside of the jurisdiction. The claimant had been entitled to commence the proceedings in England and the prospect of the claimant having to bring substantially identical actions in two jurisdictions with the risk of inconsistent decisions decisively tipped the scales in favour of London being the appropriate forum for the claim against the second defendant. 

Jury – Protection of jury. The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to import cocaine and concealing criminal property on the basis that the general practice of the Crown Court at Liverpool in cases over two weeks, including balloting jurors by number, was unlawful. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that, although the practice adopted in the Crown Court at Liverpool was unique, it had not had any effect on the fairness of the trial. Accordingly, the safety of the conviction had not been in any way impaired by the practice adopted. 

Court of Appeal – Practice. The claimant applied to set aside the standard authorisation made by the second defendant local authority, authorising the deprivation of the first defendant's liberty. The first judge of the Court of Protection granted the Official Solicitor permission to withdraw that application and the second judge refused permission to appeal. The claimant sought permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in refusing permission, held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as no application had been made by the claimant to the second judge for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. 

Town and country planning – Planning permission. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant pharmacy operator's application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to grant the interested party doctors' surgery planning permission and permission for change of use to incorporate a pharmacy. 

Town and Country Planning – Planning permission. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed a challenge by the claimant local authority to a decision by an inspector, appointed by the defendant Secretary of State, to grant planning permission for the stationing of residential caravans. The inspector had not failed to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving the settings of the listed buildings as required by s-66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Listed Buildings Act). Nor had he misunderstood or misapplied the policy in paragraphs 131 – 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework.