Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant's extradition to Poland was ordered to serve a sentence of eight months' imprisonment for theft committed in April 2002. She had served 122 days on curfew in the United Kingdom. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the instant case was one in which extradition would be disproportionate, given the delay and that fact that the appellant had served a period of time on curfew which merited some allowance in the proportionality judgment. 

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. 

Patent – Infringement. The claimant designers of an expandable garden hose commenced proceedings alleging patent infringement by the defendant companies. The Patents Court allowed the claim, holding that the patent was valid as it was novel and not obvious over two earlier patents. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The claimant was arrested and £18,500 in cash was seized. Subsequently, that money was forfeited under s 298(2)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The claimant's appeal was dismissed by the defendant Crown Court. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of that decision in the light of new medical evidence, but declined to exercise its discretion in favour of substitution, ordering an expedited rehearing instead. 

Commercial contract – Construction. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal which concerned the construction of the term 'unconditional written consent' in an asset sale agreement as used in a definition of 'Landlord's Consent' in the context of the assignation of a tenant's interest in a lease, the court the court rejected the submission that a condition affecting only the seller would not deprive landlord's consent of the character 'unconditional' as the term was used in the agreement, and concluded that 'Landlord's Consent', as defined by and referred to in the agreement, had not been either issued or granted. 

Practice – Service out of the jurisdiction. The second defendant company issued contempt proceedings against the director of the claimant companies. The director challenged the court's jurisdiction over him, and its previous orders for substituted and deemed service. The Commercial Court held that it was not open to hold that notice of the committal application could be served on the director under art 22 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001. However, it refused to set aside its previous orders, and granted permission for service of the notice and supporting documents on the director in Saudi Arabia with retrospective effect.