You are here

Bloomsburry Family law

Law Brief

(1) Welsh (2) Thrasher v (1) Secretary of State for the Home Department (2) United States of America [2006] EWHC 156 (Admin)

Where the consent of the Secretary of State was required under s 95(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 for prosecutions which fell outside the scope of the rest of that subsection, that consent was not to be inferred. The consent had to be expressly given otherwise any subsequent trial of the extradition offences would breach the speciality rule.

R (Bermingham) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2006] EWHC 200 (Admin)

Although the judge conducting an extradition hearing under the Extradition Act 2003 possessed an implied jurisdiction to hold that the prosecutor was abusing the process of the court, no finding of abuse could be justified (in a case where the category 2 territory had been designated for the purpose of s 84 of the 2003 Act) by the prosecutor’s refusal or failure to disclose evidential material beyond what was contained in the extradition request, since under the statutory scheme the prosecutor did not have to establish a case to answer.

Holmes v Alfred McAlpine Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd [2006] EWHC 110 (QB)

Where solicitors had failed to explain to a client that a conditional fee agreement had been backdated the agreement was still enforceable, as there had been no material effect on the protection afforded to the client or on the administration of justice. The client had understood that the agreement did not apply to work undertaken before it was signed and there had been no allegation of impropriety on the part of the solicitors.

Hall v Germany

Where a European arrest warrant had failed to identify the provision of German law under which the appellant’s conduct was alleged to constitute an offence, the warrant did not conform to the requirements of s 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 and had to be quashed.

Re Top Marques Care Rental Ltd [2006] EWHC 109 (Ch)

Although there was an implied direction that the Registrar of Companies would not issue a certificate of registration under s 401(2) of the Companies Act 1985, in respect of a legal charge where an order, in the form of a Re Charles order, extending the time for the registration of the legal charge remained capable of review, the certificate of registration issued by the registrar in breach of that direction did not affect the conclusive nature of the registration.

Freeman v Lockett [2006] EWHC

It was unnecessary and in any event impossible for the court to undertake the exercise of estimating what a claimant in a personal injury action might receive from a local authority by way of financial assistance towards her future care provision. Accordingly no deduction should be made from the award of damages to the claimant to reflect the possible continued availability to her of direct payments from the local authority.

EB v BA [2006] EWCA Civ 132

A claim for sex discrimination on the ground of gender reassignment was remitted to the employment tribunal, where the tribunal had held that the burden of proof had shifted to the employer, but had not in fact placed the burden of proof on the employer, and as a result the employee had been denied the full protection of s 63A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

Pages

Opsray