*Blue Holding (1) PTE Ltd and another v United States of America

Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The High Court had granted a freezing injunction over assets held by companies incorporated in Singapore and in respect of which the United States of America had commenced proceedings in its own jurisdiction in respect of allegations of money laundering. The injunction was granted pursuant to s25 of the . The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the companies' appeal as it had been inexpedient for the judge to have granted the injunction under that section in circumstances where the United Kingdom authorities had expressly stated that they were not prepared to make an application for a prohibition order pursuant to the (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005.

U v Stadt Karlsruhe

European Union Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered a request for a preliminary ruling made in the course of proceedings between Mr U and the Stadt Karlsruhe concerning the latter's refusal to alter the form in which Mr U's birth name appeared in his German passport. The Court answered a number of questions relating to the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) 2252-2004 (on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents).

*Technische Universitat Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG

European Union Data protection. A university sought to make a book available in its library via electronic reading points. The owner of the user rights to the book, Ulmer, sought to prevent the book from being made available in that way. In the course of proceedings, the German Federal Court of Justice referred three preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court rulings on the interpretation of art 5(3)(n) of Directive (EC) 2001-29.

Adamczewski v District Court in Jelenia Gora Poland

Extradition Extradition order. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against an order for his extradition to Poland where The conduct set out in the European arrest warrant did not impel an inference of criminal conduct as required by of the Extradition Act 2003.

*Beezadhur v Independent Commission against Corruption and another

Criminal law Money laundering. The appellant was convicted of offences under the Financial and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2002 in Mauritius. The Supreme Court of Mauritius dismissed his appeal on the grounds that he bore the burden of establishing the 'business activities' exemption and that that exemption did not apply. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that, on the ordinary meaning of 'business activities', the appellant's activities were not within it. Further, the Supreme Court had been right to hold that it had been for the appellant to show that the transaction had been within one of the exempt categories.

R v Rogers and others

Criminal law Money laundering. The defendant appealed against his conviction for converting criminal property. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had not erred in permitting amendment of the indictment after a successful no case to answer submission or in ruling that the acts alleged in the amended count had not been subsumed by conspiracies to defraud of which he had been acquitted. Further, the Crown Court had had jurisdiction to deal with the amended count where all the activities alleged had been undertaken in Spain by a non-resident of the United Kingdom in relation to a Spanish bank account.

*Innes v Information Commissioner and another

Freedom of information Information. The claimant complained to the first defendant Information Commissioner in respect of the second defendant local authority's failure to provide information under the in the requested Excel format and to help him to formulate an appropriate request. The complaints and appeals were dismissed and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the authority had been required to provide the information in the requested format. Further, the authority had complied with its duty to help him to formulate an appropriate request.

Santander UK Plc v National Westminster Bank Plc and other companies

Practice Application. The claimant bank sought Norwich Pharmacal orders against a number of persons to whom payments had been made in error. The Chancery Division held that, excluding some of the personal details sought, the orders would be granted.

*National Crime Agency v Azam and others

Proceeds of crime Civil recovery of proceeds of unlawful conduct. The claimant National Crime Agency sought a civil recovery order, under the over eight properties, the proceeds of rental income, and English and Luxembourg bank accounts. The Queen's Bench Division held that, with the exception of one property, the assets were recoverable, as they had been acquired through unlawful conduct, namely, drug dealing, money laundering or VAT fraud.

*Browning v Information Commissioner and another

Practice Hearing. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, gave guidance on the circumstances in which the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) could lawfully adopt a closed material procedure in which a party and his legal representatives were excluded from the hearing or part of it when it was hearing an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner. It held that the features most comprehensively spelt out in British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection v Information Commissioner and another ([2011] UKFTT EA_2010_0064 (GRC)) fully justified the approach taken in the present case, in which the maximum candour possible had been achieved.