Latest Cases

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant's extradition to Poland was ordered to serve a sentence for fraud and to face trial for attempted robbery. He appealed, relying on the effect which extradition would have on his partner and their young son. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, notwithstanding the nature of the offences, extradition would be disproportionate. That was because of the very severe effect which it would have on the mental well-being of the appellant's partner, coupled with the effect that that would have on the welfare of his young child, whose care from his mother could be significantly affected. 

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. 

Judicial review – Availability of remedy. The proceedings before the court gave rise to an issue as to jurisdiction under R (on the application of Cart) v Upper Tribunal; R (on the application of MR (Pakistan)) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and another ([2011] 4 All ER 127) (Cart). The Administrative Court dealt with the application on the facts. 

Town and country planning – Planning permission. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision not to require the applicants to obtain prior approval for the siting, design and external appearance of developments proposed by the first and third interested parties, as the authority's planning officer had had full regard to the material considerations in the case. 

Minor – Abduction. In a Hague Convention case, the Family Division ordered the return of a child to the country in which she had grown up and in which the applicant father resided. The court was not persuaded by the respondent mother's attempt to establish defences to the application based on the child's alleged objections and an alleged grave risk of harm or intolerable situation. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant's extradition to Poland was ordered to serve a sentence for theft committed in 2000. He appealed on the grounds that the judge had erred in finding that he had deliberately absented himself from the trial and delay. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge ought not to have been satisfied that the appellant had deliberately absented himself from the trial and extradition would be entirely wrong because it would be oppressive to return the appellant given the delay. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.