Latest Cases

Bankruptcy – Appeal. The Chancery Division dismissed the applicant's appeal against a bankruptcy order. It held that, among other things, in making the order the deputy district judge had been right in finding that the respondent company had acted reasonably in rejecting the applicant's offer to secure the debt. 

Practice – Striking out. The Technology and Construction Court granted a local authority's application to strike out a claim brought by an unsuccessful tenderer, under the Public Contract Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102 (the Regulations), where a contract for council tax and similar debt collection and enforcement services by bailiffs and enforcement agencies amounted to a 'services concession contract' and therefore fell outside the Regulations. The claim was unarguable in law and fact and there were procedural and substantive authorities which made it plain that a CPR Pt 7 claim should not be amended so as to turn it into a claim for judicial review, as requested by the claimant. 

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 67(3) of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 had be interpreted as not precluding a member state from refusing to aggregate periods of employment necessary to qualify for unemployment benefit to supplement income from part-time employment, where that employment had not been preceded by any period of insurance or of employment in that member state. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The Family Division held in the wife's case for financial remedy that an award of £8.8m was fair having regard to all the relevant factors. In so deciding, it refused to give effect to the wife's submission that she was in fact entitled to an award of £29m. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection, on the Public Guardian's application to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for property and financial affairs, held that, in circumstances where the only evidence of the donor's capacity was in the Court of Protection General Visitor's report, which was ambivalent on the question of her capacity to revoke the LPA, an assessment by a Court of Protection Special Visitor was required prior to considering revoking the LPA and making a substantive deputyship appointment. Pending receipt of that report, the attorneys' authority to act under the LPA would be suspended and the donor's daughter would be appointed as an interim deputy. 

Human rights – Right to a fair hearing. The European Court of Human Rights dismissed the applicant's contention that his right to a fair trial had been violated by the admission of hearsay evidence at his murder trial. Having regard to the existence of other incriminating evidence and of procedural safeguards, it could not be said that the criminal proceedings had been rendered unfair. 

Patent – Practice. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ruled on a number of applications made in respect of a claim concerning a patent for a snap-in insert which was used in display panels for shops. Among other things, it held that the English courts had jurisdiction over the dispute; granted the claimants' application for an order, under CPR 6.15(1) and (2) that good service was deemed to have been achieved by delivery to the defendants of a copy of an unsigned claim form; and dismissed a claim against one of the defendants where there were no arguable pleaded grounds on which the claimants could allege that that defendants had infringed the patent. 

Data protection – Subject access request. The Queen's Bench Division allowed an application by the claimants under CPR Pt 8, and held that the defendant had failed to comply with its subject access request duties pursuant to s 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, where neither the crime exemption nor legal privilege exemption applied, and refused to exercise its discretion in the defendant's favour. 

Adoption – Order. The Family Division, on an application for an adoption order in respect of a three-year-old child by a couple with whom she had been with since she was about eight months old, held that adoption was not only in the child's best interests, but that it was the only possible outcome that met her needs and that was capable of promoting her welfare throughout her life. The mother's consent to the making of an adoption order would be dispensed with, on the statutory ground that the welfare of the child required the order to be made. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The Chancery Division allowed the defendant company's application to strike out a claim against it where, on the true construction of the relationship between the parties, certain investment arrangements were to be treated as forming part of a bespoke self-invested pension plan. The investments did not fall within the exemption provided by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Collective Investment Schemes) Order 2001 (SI 2001/1062). The paragraphs identified by the defendant would be struck out.