Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Iranian nationals were failed asylum seekers who challenged the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to remove the first claimant and refuse the second claimant leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claims, held that the first claimant's case had been concluded for the legacy programme purposes by his departure from the United Kingdom. With respect to the second claimant, the Secretary of State had weighed the length of residence and delay appropriately in coming to the concluded decision that no exceptional grant of leave could be justified and removal had been appropriate. 

Civil procedure – Pleadings. Sheriff Court: Refusing an appeal in an action in which a sheriff found the pursuer entitled to payment by the defenders of £25,500 under the terms of a contractual bonus scheme, the court held that the pleadings were not capable of the construction that the pursuer had admitted the variation of the contract averred by the defenders, and that the sheriff had not erred in finding that he had satisfactorily established the quantum of his loss to the required standard. 

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.