Latest Cases

Agent – Account. The appeal court was bound to revisit for itself the issue of agency, given that the first instance judge had not addressed the purpose of the arrangements between the parties in reaching his conclusion that a non-contractual agency relationship had existed between the parties. Consequently, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellants' appeal against the judge's orders that the first appellant company was liable to account as agent for the respondent company and that the second appellant was liable to account as a director of the respondent.

European Union – European arrest warrant. Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA should be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which laid down a general and unconditional obligation to release a requested person arrested pursuant to a European arrest warrant as soon as a period of 90 days from that person's arrest had elapsed, where there was a very serious risk of that person absconding and that risk could not be reduced to an acceptable level by the imposition of appropriate measures. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in proceedings concerning the execution, in the Netherlands, of a European arrest warrant by the competent UK authorities in respect of a British national living in Spain who was suspected of having been involved, as a senior member of an organised crime group, in the importation, supply and sale of hard drugs, including 300 kg of cocaine.

Solicitor – Negligence. The correct approach to the law of causation in professional negligence cases was that, to the extent (if at all) that the question whether the client would have been better off depended on what the client would have done on receipt of competent advice, that had to be proved by the client the balance of probabilities. To the extent that the supposed beneficial outcome depended on what others would have done, that depended on a loss of chance evaluation. The Supreme Court so ruled concerning an appeal by a firm of solicitors against the Court of Appeal, Civil Division's decision in favour of the respondent retired miner, who had brought a professional negligence claim against the solicitors. At first instance, the judge had ruled against the respondent on causation and had dismissed the claim. The Supreme Court held that, contrary to the Court of Appeal's view, the judge's determination of the case had not been vitiated by any error of law or fact. It had not been wrong in law or in principle for the judge to have conducted a trial of the question whether the respondent would (or could) have brought an honest claim for a services award, if he had been given competent advice by the solicitors. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the judge's order was restored.

Contract – Enforceability. A binding oral contract had been reached between the parties despite there being no express identification of the event which would trigger the obligation to pay commission to the claimant estate agent. The Supreme Court further held that although there had not been compliance with s 18 of the Estate Agents Act 1979, the degree of culpability was not so great as to justify dismissal of the application.

European Union – EU Institutions. Service of the claimants' human rights claim against the Council of the European Union and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, concerning nine individuals who were tortured, killed or made to disappear during the course of war and inter-ethnic violence in Kosovo, was set aside. The Queen's Bench Division further declared that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim brought against the them and the first defendant EU.

Investigatory powers – Regulation of investigatory powers. The recording of a meeting with the claimant at his home where a police officer's body worn camera had been switched on, but the claimant had not been informed that it had been on, was capable of amounting to 'surveillance' within the meaning of Pt II of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, in reaching that conclusion, distinguished the case from Re a Complaint of Surveillance ([2014] 2 All ER 576) and would continue with its investigation of the claimant's complaint under s 65 after due liaison with the parties.

Extradition – Private and family life. The judge had conducted the required balancing exercise, had had proper regard to the delay and had been entitled to find that it would not be disproportionate to extradite the appellant. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Hungary to serve a sentence of two years and ten months' imprisonment for handling stolen goods, namely 1,800 memory cards and second driving with a breath-alcohol level exceeding the relevant limit.

European Union – Failure to fulfil obligations. Article 2(a) of Council Directive (EC) 1999/37, read in conjunction with art 3(11) and (13) of Directive (EC) 2007/46 should be interpreted as meaning that Directive 1999/37 was applicable to the documents issued by member states at the time of the registration of vehicles manufactured before 29 April 2009, the date of expiry of the period for transposition of Directive 2007/46. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in proceedings concerning the refusal by the Road Traffic Authority Board, Netherlands, to recognise the vehicle registration certificates issued by other member states and to register those vehicles in the Netherlands.

Equity – Fiduciary duty. The respondent administrator had failed in his duty of care and was in breach of his fiduciary duties in effecting the sale of the insolvent company's assets. Accordingly, the Companies Court allowed the application of the joint liquidators and held that the sum of £743,750 represented equitable compensation for the breaches of fiduciary duty.

Constitutional law – Overseas territory. The claimant Chagossian and founder of the Chagos Refugee Group failed in their challenges to the defendant Secretary of State's decision not to support resettlement of Chagossians to the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) and to provide a support package of approximately £40m over ten years for Chagossians living outside the BIOT. The Divisional Court further rejected their challenge to the Secretary of State's (implicit) decision not to remove the statutory and constitutional bar on the Chagossians' right of abode in the BIOT.