Extradition Extradition order. Further information from the respondent judicial authority provided that the appellant was accused, not convicted, of blackmail pending his appeal against conviction in Hungary and he would have a full trial in the appellate court. Accordingly, the Divisional Court dismissed his appeal against orders for his extradition, since the premise which formed the starting point for the appellant's arguments as to why he should be regarded as a convicted person was rejected.
Police Negligence. The appellant passer-by was injured as a result of being exposed to the very danger from which the police officers had a duty of care to protect her, whilst they were arresting a suspected criminal. The Supreme Court in coming to that decision, overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division.
Public procurement Public contracts. The defendant county council (LCC) applied unsuccessfully to have an automatic suspension lifted, which had prevented it from entering into a contract with the winner of a tendering process for services when the outcome of the process had been challenged by the claimant NHS trusts (the trusts). The Technology and Construction Court, in dismissing the application, held that, although damages would be an adequate remedy for LCC, the impact on the trusts would go far wider than simply those aspects to which a money value could be attributed. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for the trusts.
Practice Settlement. A settlement agreement previously agreed by the defendant solicitors had been worded in a manner to cover the claim in negligence presently sought to be brought against them by the claimant, who had purportedly acquired such claims against the defendant as a result of a liquidation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, accordingly dismissed the claimant appeal against the grant of summary judgment.
Hutson and others v Tata Steel UK Ltd (formerly Corus UK Ltd, successors in title and holders of the liabilities of British Steel Corporation and its predecessor companies)
Personal injuries Group litigation. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimants' application to vary a senior master's order that only bladder cancer should be included as the additional malignancy to fall within the scope of a group litigation order, which had been granted to them in a personal injury action against Tata Steel UK Ltd.
European Union Jurisdiction. Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No1215-2012, read in conjunction with art 11(1)(b) of that regulation, should be interpreted as meaning that it could not be relied on by a natural person, whose professional activity consisted, among other things, in recovering claims for damages from insurers and who relied on a contract for the assignment of a claim concluded with the victim of a road accident, to bring a civil liability action against the insurer of the person responsible for that accident, which had its registered office in a member state other than the member state of the place of domicile of the injured party, before a court of the member state in which the injured party was domiciled. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in proceedings concerning an insurance claim brought by the applicant, to whom the claim had been assigned, against an insurance company (established in Germany) before the Polish courts.
Statement of case Striking out. The claimant liquidator's claim against the respondents for a declaration that a payment of 160,000 to them had been void as a preference was struck out, given his previous discontinuance of misfeasance allegations against the first two respondents. The Chancery Division held that CPR 38.7 applied, had not been complied with and permission under that rule was refused, and the claim was more generally an abuse of process.
Practice Striking out. The second defendant (ENP) successfully applied for summary judgment on its defence, in a claim concerning leaks caused by air conditioning systems. The Technology and Construction Court held that the case against ENP, which came down to alleged deficiencies in a manual it had provided, was fanciful, and had no realistic prospect of success.
Practice Summary judgment. The definition of 'trade effluent' in of the Water Industry Act 1991 extended to a mixed liquid made up, in part, of the product of trade or industry and, in part, of surface water where the mixing had taken place prior to discharge into the public foul sewer. Accordingly, the defendant water and sewerage company had lawfully imposed trade effluent charges on the claimant (Boots), in circumstances where the trade effluent had been mixed with surface water. The Commercial Court so held in granting the defendant's application for summary judgment on Boots claims challenging the defendant's entitlement to charge it for the discharge of trade effluent from Boots' property over a certain period.
Conflict of laws Tort. Where a state stood to be held to account for acts of violence against its citizens, it should be held to account, in its own courts, by its own law and should not escape liability by reference to a colonial law which it had made itself. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division held that English law applied to determine whether torts had been committed against the claimants by the defendant Secretaries of State by assaults, beatings, rape and other acts of violence allegedly inflicted during the Cyprus emergency by agents of the UK government and the then Colonial Administration of Cyprus.