Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court decided that, on the evidence it was in the two children's best interests to be removed from the jurisdiction to Malaysia with the mother on a temporary basis for a family wedding. Although the risk of abduction was low, the consequence of a breach was significant and to that end the mother was to lodge a surety of £5000 with the court to be made available to the father for his legal costs should she fail to return. 

Family proceedings – Human Rights. The Family Division granted an application for a declaration by a 16 year old person that the adoptive parents receive no information about his day-to-day life, nor about how his gender reassignment treatment was progressing. In so doing the judge engaged in a balancing of the parties respective rights under art 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. 

Human rights – Freedom of expression. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant publisher from publishing a story regarding the claimant's extra-marital sexual affairs. Having balanced the claimant's right to privacy against the defendant's right to freedom of expression and the fact that publication would not contribute to any public debate, the court was satisfied that when the matter came to trial the claimant was likely to establish that publication would not be allowed. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Setting aside acquittal – New prosecution –Alleged admissions. High Court of Justiciary: In an application by the Crown to set aside an acquittal and grant authority to bring a new prosecution, relying on alleged admissions made or becoming known after the date of acquittal, the respondent having stood trial for murder in 1992 and jury having found the charge against him not proven, the court held that the statements relied on could not reasonably and fairly be construed as admissions, except for a statement made to a prison officer, however that statement was inadmissible and accordingly the application must fail. 

Criminal procedure – Disclosure – Prosecutor's duty to disclose information. Sheriff Court: In applications to the court for a ruling on disclosure by three accused who had pled not guilty to a summary complaint containing 16 charges mostly alleging contraventions of road traffic and regulatory legislation relevant to dealing in motor vehicles, the court concluded that a substantial amount of information sought by the defence was within the scope of the prosecutor's duty to disclose information. 

Solicitor – Dishonesty. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's application to withdraw the defendant Law Society's intervention into her solicitor's practice where, on the evidence, there was good reason to suspect that she had been dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people and that she had realised that, by those standards, her conduct had been dishonest. 

Company – Insolvency. The Chancery Division dismissed an application seeking declarations that the appointment of the first three respondents as joint administrators of a company had been a nullity because of an alleged prior floating charge in favour of another company. The court allowed a cross-application by the respondents, the joint administrators and Nationwide Building society, to strike out the substantive application having found that Nationwide's predecessor (Derbyshire), had had a qualifying floating charge for the purposes of s 251 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which Nationwide had acquired and that the company had never acquired the hotel in question and its adjoining land otherwise than subject to the terms of Derbyshire's legal charge and debenture. Accordingly, nothing had had the effect of depriving the Derbyshire debenture of its status of a floating charge as created and Nationwide had not been not precluded from making the appointment of the joint administrators. 

Agriculture – EU financial assistance – Damages for breach of community law. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuers sought reparation for loss and damage said to have been caused by the defenders' breach of community law occasioned by the Rural Payments Agency, acting on the defenders' behalf, withdrawing the first pursuer's recognition as a producer organisation (PO) under the EU's Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Scheme, the court held that the second to 21st pursuers, as members of a PO, could relevantly advance claims for Francovich damages and the breach of EU law founded upon was 'sufficiently serious' to give rise to state liability. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection considered four test cases in which it was thought that there was no family member or friend who could be appointed as a representative under r 3A of the Court of Protection Rules 2007, SI 2007/1744. The court held that, among other things, the primary responsibility to provide a resource that enabled it either to make such appointments or to otherwise meet the minimum procedural requirements in cases in the classes represented by the test cases fell on the Secretary of State, or on the Secretary of State together with the applicant authorities. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union allowed the appeal by HeidelbergCement AG in which that company sought to set aside a judgment of the General Court of the European Union in HedelbergCement v Commission: T-302/11, by which the General Court had dismissed its action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2361 final of 30 March 2011 relating to a proceeding under art 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.