Extradition Extradition order. The claimant's extradition was sought so that he could stand trial in Spain on charges of, inter alia, conspiracy to defraud. The claimant applied for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to order the claimant's extradition. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application on the basis that the Secretary of State's decision had been reasonable and was not open to challenge.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division considered an application by the mother for the summary return of two children to Canada, and whether the children were habitually resident in Canada or England. The court held that, on the evidence, the children were habitually resident in Canada.
European Union Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the fifth paragraph of art 10a of Council Directive (EEC) 85-337 (on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment) and the fifth paragraph of art 15a of Council Directive (EC) 96-61 (concerning integrated pollution prevention and control), as amended by Directive (EC) 2003-35 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003. The request had been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Mr Edwards and Ms Pallikaropoulos and, on the other, the Environment Agency, the First Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs concerning a permit issued by the Environment Agency for the operation of a cement works. The request concerned the conformity with European Union law of the decision of the House of Lords ordering Ms Pallikaropoulos, whose appeal had been dismissed as unfounded, to pay the costs of the opposing parties.
Costs Order for costs. The Chancery Division considered the issue of costs following judgment in a substantive appeal.
Negligence Duty to take care. The claimant had suffered brain damage following a car accident in which he had been the passenger in the first defendant driver's car. Having originally blamed black ice for the accident, the first defendant modified his story and accepted responsibility. the judge dismissed the claim for damages, finding that the cause of the accident had been black ice. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against the decision to dismiss his claim, holding that the judge's careful analysis and conclusions could not properly be faulted.
Disclosure and inspection of documents Disclosure against persons not parties to proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge had erred in finding that payment of disbursements by a solicitor instructed under a CFA, without more, incurred any potential liability to an adverse costs order.
Children and young persons Court proceedings. Three children were being cared for by their grandmother as there had been concerns regarding their mother's care for them, in particular her relationship with a child sex offender. In anticipation of the man's release from prison, the proceedings were issued with the intention of requiring the local authority to conduct a risk assessment. An assessment was conducted and a subsequent assessment was carried out when the details of the offender's release were available. Between the first and second assessment, the police's opinion on risk changed materially, consequently, the authority found that the children were at no greater risk than any other child in the area. The children's application for judicial review of that assessment was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that the second assessment had been unlawful as it had not dealt with the police's change in position.
Charging order Judgment debt. A dispute arose between the parties in relation to the refurbishment of domestic property (the property). Subsequently, a costs order was made against the claimant and a charging order was placed on his property. The claimant applied to discharge the order. In dismissing its claim, the Technology and Construction Court held that, on the facts, it would be wholly wrong to discharge the final charging order.
Prison Removal of prisoner from one prison to another. The claimant, who was a serving recalled life sentence prisoner, brought a claim for misfeasance in public office against the defendant trust on the basis that it was vicariously liable for the actions of G, a Life Manager at an open prison. The trust applied to strike out the claim, or alternatively for summary judgment. The Administrative Court, in granting summary judgment, held that an examination of the evidence relied upon in support of the claim led to the conclusion that there was no credible motive that would have led G to have acted maliciously and there was no evidence that he had been motivated by malice. Further, there was no evidence that G had acted dishonestly or in bad faith.
Arbitration Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court held, in granting the claimant company's application for summary judgment, that the defendant company had no real prospect of successfully defending the enforcement of two adjudication decisions, where papers had been correctly submitted and where there was nothing to prevent a party from giving two notices of adjudication.