Isobel 7Listed on Monday 15 July 2013 is the matter of Szepietowski (Nee Seery) v The Serious Organised Crime Agency. The appellant entered into a deed of settlement with SOCA under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s 266 in respect of a portfolio of properties owned by her and husband. This agreement released her matrimonial home from a direct claim by SOCA. The expectations of the parties were that the proceeds of the sale of the other properties would be sufficient to discharge both the debt owed to SOCA and debts owed to a bank. Due to the downturn in the housing market, the values of these properties proved to be insufficient. SOCA applied to be subrogated to the charge of the bank over the matrimonial home, and the decision of the High Court to allow marshalling of the securities was upheld unanimously by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court will determine whether it was inequitable to order the marshalling of securities.

From Tuesday 16 until Wednesday 17 July 2013 are the linked extradition matters of Bucnys v Ministry of Justice, Lithuania, Sakalis v Ministry of Justice, Lithuania, and Lavrov v Ministry of Justice, Estonia. These appeals concern three European Arrest Warrants, two of which were issued by the Ministry of Justice of Lithuania, and the third issued by the Ministry of Justice of Estonia. The appellants assert that neither Ministry of Justice constitutes a “judicial authority” within the meaning of the Extradition Act 2003 s 2(2), with the consequence that each of the European Arrest Warrants issued would be invalid. Other questions for the Supreme Court are whether a Ministry of Justice can in principle constitute a “judicial authority” within the meaning of the Extradition Act 2003 s 2(2), and whether s 2(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires the Serious Organised Crime Agency to certify that the authority which issued the European Arrest Warrant has the function of issuing European Arrest Warrants, domestic arrest warrants, or both.

On Thursday 18 July 2013 is the appeal of R (Hodkin & Anor) v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. The appellant is a member of the Church of Scientology and wishes to marry her fiancé at the chapel they attend. The chapel applied to be registered as a “place of meeting for religious worship” under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 in order to be licensed for the solemnisation of marriage under the Marriage Act 1949 s 26, but was rejected by the respondent on the grounds they were bound by R v Registrar General ex parte Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697 which upheld a refusal to register another Scientologist chapel on the grounds it was not “a place of meeting for religious worship”. The Supreme Court will consider this, and provide interpretation of the meaning and application of s 2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 to the beliefs and practices of the Church of Scientology, and the application of the provisions to other religions that may practice in similar ways.

On Wednesday 17 July 2013 the Supreme Court will hand down judgment in the following: Benedetti v Sawiris & Ors; R (New London College Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and R (West London Vocational Training College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.

The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding:

Booth v The Parole Board, Osborn v The Parole Board and In the matter of an application of Reilly for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland), heard 16 – 18 April 2013.

Re Nortel Companies; Re Lehman Companies; and Re Lehman Companies (No 2), heard 14 – 16 May 2013.

Re an application by Central Craigavon Ltd for Judicial Review, heard 15 May 2013.

R v Hughes, heard 5 – 6 June 2013.

R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice, and McGeoch v Lord President of the Council & Anor, heard 10 – 11 June 2013.

Teal Assurance Company Ltd v W R Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd & Anor, heard 17 – 18 June 2013.

R (Modaresi) v Secretary of State for Health, heard 19 June 2013.

R v Gul, heard 25 – 26 June 2013.

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Al-Jedda, heard 27 June 2013.

Woodland v Essex County Council, heard 3 – 4 July 2013.

Patel & Ors v SSHD, Anwar v SSHD, and Alam v SSHD, heard 3 July 2013.

In the matter of “The Alexandros T” (Nos. 1, 2 and 3), heard 8 – 9 July 2013.

South Lanarkshire Council v The Scottish Information Commissioner, heard 8 July 2013.

Torfaen County Borough Council v Douglas Willis Ltd, heard 9 July 2013.

McGraddie v McGraddie, heard 10 July 2013.