Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Care order. The Family Division granted a care order in respect of a Lithuanian child living in the United Kingdom, having found that the best option was for the child to remain in long-term foster care with his current carers. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by August Srotck KG against a decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office concerning an application by that company for registration of a figurative sign as an European Union trade mark. 

Discrimination – Nationality, on the grounds of. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal against the rejection of their judicial review challenge of the government's scheme to provide assistance to Afghan locally employed staff who had been employed during the military engagement in Afghanistan. The Divisional Court had been correct to find that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims of discrimination on grounds of nationality under Pts 3 and 5 of the Equality Act 2010 and to have rejected the discrimination claim brought under the common law. The grant of declaratory relief rather than quashing the scheme had been an exercise of the court's discretion that could not be faulted. 

Town and country planning – Building of special architectural or historic interest. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a challenge by way of judicial review regarding the proposed Ordsall Chord elevated railway in Manchester. Neither the planning inspector in recommending the scheme, nor the Secretaries of State in having approved the scheme, had failed to act consistently with a decision maker's statutory duties relating to listed buildings and conservation areas and nor had the Secretaries of State misunderstood or misapplied relevant national policy and guidance. 

Building contract – Liability for loss or damage. The Technology and Construction court made preliminary rulings in a dispute concerning repair works to be carried out at a hotel and apartment complex which the parties had contracted to develop. The court ruled on, among other things, whether the contract between the parties including assumed liabilities included incomplete work and/or defects for which the defendant was liable. 

Sentence – Criminal damage. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of 32 months' imprisonment for a conviction of threatening to destroy or damage property, had been excessive, given the distinctions between the present case and the authority of R v Reader ([2014] EWCA Crim 2145). Accordingly, the sentence would be quashed and substituted for a term of seven months' imprisonment. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Mayor of London's direction, under art 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, SI 2008/580, to the local planning authority that he be the local planning authority for the second interested party's planning and listed building consent applications. 

Bankruptcy – Property available for distribution. The Bankruptcy High Court allowed an application for relief by trustees in the bankruptcy of DD, who had made his living from residential and commercial property and was indebted to around the sum of £2.8m. The court held that money in certain accounts belonged to DD, that a flat which had been purchased out of money from one of the accounts was a bankruptcy asset, and that the transfer of shares in a company controlled by DD had been a sham. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The Privy Council dismissed both an appeal and a cross-appeal concerning the respondent's dismissal from his employment with the appellant. It considered whether there had been constructive dismissal, whether the respondent's conduct had justified dismissal, and whether the Supreme Court of Mauritius had miscalculated the remuneration package. 

Criminal procedure – Rape – Standard of interpretation at trial – Judge's charge. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant, whose native tongue was Korean, against his conviction for rape, the court rejected contentions that the appellant had not received a fair trial because the interpreter at the trial had impeded rather than improved his understanding of the proceedings and that the trial judge had materially misdirected the jury in her directions on reasonable belief.