Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's application for leave to appeal against the judge's refusal to cancel the registration in England, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No36) Regulations 2014, SI2014-3141, of an order made by a French judge which restrained the disposition of the defendant's assets. Under the Council Framework Decision (JHA)2003-577 and the Regulations, a challenge to the substantive reasons for the making of an overseas restraint order might be made only in the courts of the issuing state. The courts of the executing state would not, themselves, consider such a challenge. For those reasons, leave would be granted for the decision of the refused application to be citable in court.
Data protection Processing of information. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claimant general practitioner's application to prevent the defendant General Medical Council (the GMC) disclosing to a former patient a report obtained in investigating his fitness to practise. The GMC's balancing exercise had fallen into error and the balance had been wrong. Guidance was given for future mixed data cases.
European Union EU Institutions. The General Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP for annulment of Decision 18-c-01-14 of the Council of the European Union, refusing access to certain documents relating to the adoption of of the European Parliament and of the Council. The General Court held that the Council had been correct in its views that the documents at issue concerned legal advice within the meaning of the second indent of of Regulation (EC) No 1049-2001 and that there was no overriding public interest in their disclosure.
Human rights Right to respect for private and family life. The Supreme Court held that the information-sharing provisions of of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 were not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament owing to the fact that in practice they might result in a disproportionate interference with the rights of many children, young persons and their parents, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights through the sharing of private information.
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.