Latest Cases

Contempt of court – Committal. The Family Division, on the father's application for committal to prison (or other penalty) of the mother for the alleged contempt of an order, namely, in having failed to return two children to England and Wales from India, held that the mother was in contempt of court. However, the question of sentence was adjourned to give the mother a time for reflection and time to mitigate, should she wish to do so. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant Indian citizen's appeal against a decision by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) refusing him permission to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of a decision made by an Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) in Mumbai, on behalf of the respondent Secretary of State, refusing him a business visitor visa to the United Kingdom. Among other things, it considered how an ECO should deal with a second application based on different evidence to that furnished where an earlier application had been refused, under para 320(7A) of the Immigration Rules, before making a decision under para 320(7B) of the Rules. 

Prison – Prisoner. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant determinate sentence prisoner's application for judicial review of the defendant Parole Board's decision not to direct his re-release following his recall to prison, held, among other things, that it could not arguably be said that the Parole Board had applied the wrong test. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division allowed the application of the local authority's application to order that a seven year old child AA have a device fitted on medical advice in order to prevent the impact of any further heart-attacks. In granting the order, so ordering the court went against the wishes of the parents having decided that it was in the child's best interests to have the device implanted. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division continued a freezing injunction against the first respondent, against whom judgment had been granted in favour of the applicants, and discharged ab initio the freezing injunction against his wife, the second respondent, in respect of whom no judgment had been granted. The eagerness with which the applicants had approached the seeking of freezing relief against the first respondent had misled them into an approach that targeted particular assets in a proprietary way, and thence to obtaining, wrongly, a wholesale freezing order against the second respondent. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed the claimant Philippine national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing to grant her leave to remain in the United Kingdom. There was no merit in her arguments relating to historic injustice and to her own pregnancy, nor was there merit in the issue of whether the applicant should be expected to make an application from her own country. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by The Body Shop International plc (The Body Shop) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between The Body Shop and Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV concerning the application by the former for registration of the word sign 'SPA WISDOM' as a Community trade mark. 

Medical treatment – Human fertilisation. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed an appeal from a master striking out the defendant fertility clinic's counterclaim in relation to the claimant regulatory authority's claim for fees in respect of unpaid fees in connection with the defendant's provision of IVF treatment cycles. The case remained struck out with the claimant to be awarded its cost. 

European Union – Customs duties. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009, and decided that it had to be interpreted as meaning that a soya protein concentrate, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, came under heading 2309 of that nomenclature. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. Following the defendant's conviction of conspiracy to import cocaine, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, in significant respects, the judge's approach in calculating the recoverable amount had been seriously flawed in a way which resulted in an excessive confiscation order being made. On the facts, the confiscation order in the sum of approximately £3.6m would be quashed and substituted for the sum of £500,000.