*Love v Government of the United States of America

Extradition Extradition order. The appellant was discharged from extradition to the United States to face charges of making a series of cyber-attacks on the computer networks of private companies and US government agencies to steal and then publicly disseminate confidential information. The Divisional Court held that the forum bar in s 83A of the Evidence Act 2003 operated to prevent the appellant's extradition and that it would be oppressive to extradite him.

Edge Tools & Equipment Ltd v Greatstar Europe Ltd and another company

Contract Repudiation. The claimant company's claim for money due to it and damages succeeded, in a dispute concerning a contract for the supply of tool parts. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant companies' counterclaim failed, since they had failed to prove that certain representations allegedly made by the claimant had been false.

*College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amersfoort v X BV; Visser Vastgoed Beleggingen BV v Raad van de gemeente Appingedam

European Union Freedom of establishment. In two proceedings which were subsequently joined, the Court of Justice of the European Union was asked to give a preliminary ruling in circumstances where, in Case , the respondent company had challenged the amount of fees-charges that the applicant municipality in the Netherlands had asked it to pay in connection with the installation of fibre-optic cables for a public electronics communications network. The Court held, among other things, that of Directive 2006-123 should be interpreted as meaning that that directive was not applicable to fees-charges for the payment of which liability was connected with the rights of undertakings authorised to provide such services.

Appleby Global Group LLC v British Broadcasting Corporation and another

Practice Transfer of proceedings between divisions of High Court. The application of the first defendant BBC to have a claim against it transferred from the Business list of the Chancery Division to the Media and Communications List in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court was unsuccessful. The Chancery Division held that there was no significant difference between the venues, and both were sufficiently experienced and able to address the issues that the case, which concerned the alleged use and publication of information in the claimant's database, was likely to raise.

Corbiere Ltd and others v Xu (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening)

Confidential information Misuse of private information. The claimant companies applied successfully for an order compelling the defendant (X) to disclose the location of information that he had wrongly accessed and copied from them. However, the Chancery Division dismissed the claimants' application for an order that X be restrained from leaving the jurisdiction and that he surrender his passport until he had complied with those orders, since the harm to X would not be justified.

Vaines v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

Profits tax Relief. The deduction sought by the taxpayer was not deductible in computing the profits of the limited liability partnership's trade and accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the taxpayer's appeal.

Badyal v Badyal and another; Badyal v Badyal and another

Partnership Partnership property. The Chancery Division ruled on the ownership of certain properties where a partnership between three brothers had been dissolved. It held that the usual orders for winding up and the taking of accounts would be made. Further, the court dismissed a petition to wind up a company, which had operated as a quasi-partnership between the parties, where it would not be just or equitable to grant it, and it refused to grant for relief under s994 of the where unfair prejudice had not been established on the facts.

Phones 4U Ltd (in administration) v EE Ltd

Practice Striking out. The claimant company, Phones, successfully applied for summary judgment to have the counterclaim of the defendant company, EE, struck out, in a dispute that arose out of Phones' financial difficulties. EE had no realistic prospect of success on the counterclaim and there was no other compelling reason why the claim should be allowed to proceed to trial.

Recall Support Services Ltd and others v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and another; McCabe v Frost (as liquidator of VIP Communications Ltd)

Company Liquidator. The applicant director of a company in liquidation, M, made three applications. The Chancery Division held that it was appropriate that M should be provided with detailed time sheets of the liquidator and his staff, in order to try to identify what time had been spent by the liquidator that might be payable by M. The other two applications were dismissed as being without merit.

Burns v Financial Conduct Authority

Financial services Financial Services Authority (FSA). The appellant, a non-executive director, had breached the duties which she had owed as a director to two UK mutual societies and the procedure adopted by the Upper Tribunal in coming to that conclusion had been fair. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal Civil Division further held that the appellant was entitled to a substantial sum for her costs on the basis that the respondent, Financial Conduct Authority, had acted unreasonably in introducing an allegation of corrupt payment.