Auzins v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in abuse of process, estoppel, law reports, res judicata by sally

Auzins v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia [2016] EWHC 802 (Admin)

‘The appellant was arrested in Latvia in connection with four offences of theft. He admitted guilt in relation to some of the offences and was released subject to certain conditions. In breach of those conditions he left Latvia and subsequently came to live in England. He was arrested in Scotland pursuant to a European arrest warrant (“EAW”) issued by the Latvian judicial authority, and extradition proceedings followed in the Sheriff Court. He resisted extradition on health grounds. A letter from the Latvian authorities accepted that the medical treatment available within the Latvian prison system for the treatment of the appellant’s medical problems would be insufficient and incompatible with European guidelines. The court concluded that, while there were no bars to extradition under the section 11(1) of the Extradition Act 2003, the appellant’s physical condition was such that it would be oppressive to extradite him. Three years later, a replacement, second, EAW was issued, reflecting the fact that one of the offences for which extradition had originally been sought had become time barred. The appellant was arrested pursuant to the second EAW in England. Updated evidence from the Latvian authorities showed that the position as to the availability of treatment for the appellant’s conditions had improved in the intervening period. Following a contested hearing, the district judge ordered the appellant’s extradition. The appellant challenged that decision on grounds, inter alia, that the district judge should have discharged him because: (i) the issue of his surrender was res judicata or subject to an issue estoppel on account of his discharge in the earlier Scottish proceedings for substantially the same matters; alternatively, (ii) in seeking his surrender the Latvian authorities were abusing the process of the court.’

WLR Daily, 14th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Dickinson and another v UK Acorn Finance Ltd – WLR Daily

Dickinson and another v UK Acorn Finance Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1194; [2015] WLR (D) 479

‘The fact that a loan the subject of litigation was rendered unenforceable by statute did not mean that a judge was not entitled to determine whether it would be an abuse of process for a party to proceed with its submission that it would be an abuse of process for another party to be permitted to proceed with its claim which was founded on that loan.’

WLR Daily, 25th November 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Public and private law wrongs are not the same – Court of Appeal – UK Human Rights Blog

‘ Tchenguiz v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2014] EWCA Civ 472, 15 April 2014. This judgment is a neat illustration of how important it is to keep the concepts of public law and private law unlawfulness separate – they do not necessarily have the same legal consequences.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 15th April 2014

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Clark and another v In Focus Asset Management & Tax Solutions Ltd (Financial Ombudsman Service intervening) – WLR Daily

Clark and another v In Focus Asset Management & Tax Solutions Ltd (Financial Ombudsman Service intervening) [2014] EWCA Civ 118; [2014] WLR (D) 76

‘The doctrine of res judicata precluded a complainant who had accepted an award made by the Financial Ombudsman Service from starting legal proceedings to pursue complaints which had already been submitted to the ombudsman service and which the ombudsman had decided. Further, section 228(5) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 did not exclude the operation of res judicata.’

WLR Daily, 14th February 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (Respondent) v Zodiac Seats UK Limited (formerly known as Contour Aerospace Limited) (Appellant) – Supreme Court

Posted July 8th, 2013 in appeals, damages, law reports, patents, res judicata, Supreme Court by sally

Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (Respondent) v Zodiac Seats UK Limited (formerly known as Contour Aerospace Limited) (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 46 | UKSC 2010/0013 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 3rd July 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Ferrero SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) – WLR daily

Posted October 30th, 2009 in EC law, law reports, res judicata, trade marks by sally

Ferrero SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Case T-140/08); [2009] WLR (D) 308

“In proceedings concerning the alleged invalidity of a community trade mark, departments of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) are not bound by earlier final decisions in opposition proceedings, since no force of res judicata attaches to such decisions.”

WLR Daily, 29th October 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

 

Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd – Times Law Reports

Posted February 29th, 2008 in law reports, patents, perjury, res judicata by sally

Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd

Court of Appeal

“Perjury by a witness who had common cause with one of the parties in proceedings could be sufficient to have the judgment set aside as having been obtained by fraud.”

The Times, 29th February 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted February 1st, 2008 in law reports, patents, perjury, res judicata by sally

Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 9; [2008] WLR (D) 19

“Where an inventor who gave perjured evidence at the trial of his employer’s application for a patent had been more than a mere witness in those proceedings, his fraud should be treated as his employer’s fraud for the purposes of the fraud exception to the doctrine of res judicata.”

WLR Daily, 31st January 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.