Freedom of information Exempt information. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the Department for Work and Pensions' (DWP) appeal against a determination of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) regarding decision notices issued by the respondent Information Commissioner, following the DWP's refusal to supply information under the . The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) had not misdirected itself in law regarding ss36(2) and 43(2) of the Act, had not reached a perverse conclusion on the issue of 'commercial interests' nor erred in its consideration of the public interest.
Criminal evidence Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the appeal of the defendant solicitor who had been convicted of money laundering where the judge, having determined, just before the defendant was due to be cross-examined, that he was no longer able to fully participate in his trial, had failed to follow the procedure in s4A(1) of the . The jury should not have been allowed to return a verdict, other than a verdict of acquittal if they had not been satisfied on the evidence already given in the trial that the defendant had done the act charged against him.
*Cartier International AG and others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and others (The Open Rights Group intervening)
European Union Trade marks. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed appeals by the defendant internet service providers against orders that required them to block or attempt to block access to websites where counterfeit copies of the claimant luxury goods companies' products were being sold. The judge had had jurisdiction to make the orders and he had identified and applied the principles correctly. A further appeal against an award of costs against the defendants was also dismissed.
Criminal law Trial. Regarding the defendants' appeals against their convictions for various money laundering offences, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the judge's decision to give further directions in order to address a note from one of the jurors had not resulted in any material error to the convictions.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division refused the claimant solicitor's application for an injunction in order to restrain the release of the six closed files or alternatively their publication and he also sought a delivery up of all nine of the Solicitor Regulation Authority's files to him. The claim was further struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.
Solicitor Negligence. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant's claim against a solicitors' firm and a conveyancing firm (HOC) that had acted for D. The claimant had purportedly purchased property from D which D had falsely represented as being his own. HOC had been in breach of contract and-or duty. Neither of the defendants had acted reasonably, and so they could not obtain relief under of the Trustee Act 1925. They had to bear equal responsibility.
Data protection Subject access request. The Queen's Bench Division allowed an application by the claimants under CPRPt8, and held that the defendant had failed to comply with its subject access request duties pursuant to s7 of the where neither the crime exemption nor legal privilege exemption applied, and refused to exercise its discretion in the defendant's favour.
Charity Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered the appeal of the appellant charity and its trustees against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review of the respondent Charity Commission's decision to initiate an inquiry, under s46 of the and of a production order, issued under s52 of the Act, on the sole ground that they should have appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber). It dismissed the appeal in respect of the inquiry decision, and allowed the appeal in respect of the production order, holding that s320 of the Act did not permit an appeal on the grounds that a s52 order had been unlawfully made.
European Union Directives. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 11(1), read in conjunction with , and , of Directive (EC) 2005-60, as amended by . The request had been made in proceedings between Safe Interenvos SA (Safe), a payment institution, and three credit institutions, concerning the closure by those credit institutions of the accounts held by Safe because they had suspected money laundering.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division refused the defendant banks' application to strike out the claimant's second set of proceedings which included defamation claims, on the basis that they were an abuse of process. The court found that although the claimant could have applied at various points to bring earlier publications into the first proceedings, he could not be criticised for not making a claim in respect of any cause of action which had not by then arisen.