There are a series of hearings listed for 1 day in Courtroom 2 of the Supreme Court this week. On Tuesday 4 December 2012 is Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson & Ors, which concerns service provision for flats owned by the appellant company. A tender was established for work to be carried out at the flats, and by the time the priced specifications were made available to the lessee respondents the contract had already been awarded to a particular contractor. The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to comply with the Consultation Regulations.  The issue for the Supreme Court is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s 20, and whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to hold that the amount of money involved was irrelevant, the failure to comply strictly with the requirements did itself constitute serious prejudice (without the need to consider whether the lessees would have been better off if there had been strict compliance), and whether an offer by the landlord to reduce the cost of the works taken into account in calculating the service charges is also irrelevant. Case details are available here.  

On Wednesday 5 December 2012 is the appeal of B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. In this matter the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with an order for him to disclose his correct identity during his SIAC appeal against a deportation order. The appellant was committed for contempt of court and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. It is for the Supreme Court to determine whether the approach to appeal of sentence for contempt of court should be the same test (‘manifestly excessive’) as where a person guilty of a criminal offence appeals their sentence, and whether a case should be remitted where a first instance sentencing decision in a contempt case was flawed and/or procedurally unfair. Here are further details.

Finally, on Thursday 6 December 2012 is Zakrzewski v The Regional Court in Lodz, Poland. This appeal from the Admin Court (QBD) concerns the appellant’s arrest pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant. Before the appellant’s extradition hearing his sentence was reduced, and the issue for the Supreme Court is whether this reduction has invalidated the EAW as it no longer complies with the requirements under the Extradition Act 2003 s 2(6). Here are the case details.

At the time of writing no judgments were scheduled to be handed down this week in either the Supreme Court or the Privy Council.

The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding:

Stanford International Bank Ltd (acting by its joint liquidators) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office, heard 23 – 25 January 2012.

Societe Generale v Geys, heard 17 October 2012.

HMRC v Loyalty Management UK Ltd, heard 24 – 25 October 2012.

R (on the application of Prudential plc & Anor) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax & Anor, heard 5 – 7 November 2012.

Imperial Tobacco Ltd v The Lord Advocate, heard 12 – 15 November 2012.

VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors, heard 12 – 14 November 2012.

R (Faulkner) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor and R (Faulkner) v Secretary of State for Justice & The Parole Board, heard 19 – 21 November 2012.

O’Brien v Ministry of Justice, heard 21 – 22 November 2012.

Kinloch v Her Majesty’s Advocate, heard 26 November 2012.

Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland v Lloyds Banking Group Plc, heard 27 – 28 November 2012.

In the Matter of X, heard 29 November 2012.