Latest Cases

Adoption – Practice. The Family Division considered two cases, which were heard together as they raised common issues, involving babies born to mothers from Eastern Europe, but relinquished at birth for adoption in the United Kingdom. Among other things, the court considered what jurisdiction the court had to have to make orders facilitating such placements and what factors had to be taken into account when making decisions about relinquished babies, the possible outcomes and the procedures that should be followed. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division, on the wife's application for financial remedy orders, made an order in the terms of the husband's revised offer, namely that the wife would be allowed to remain in the matrimonial home rent free for life and she would receive a lump sum of £2m in respect of her future income needs. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection allowed an application by a the husband of the patient to appoint her him as a deputy for property and affairs. That appointment was in the face of opposition by the patient's children on the basis that the husband was illiterate and had a poor grasp of English. 

Misrepresentation – Fraudulent misrepresentation. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimants' claim that the first claimant, S, had been induced to purchase shares in a mining company as a result of misrepresentations made by the defendants. On the evidence, none of the defendants had had actual knowledge of the relevant provisions of the joint venture agreement between the parties and had wilfully misstated the same. Further, the claimants' alternative case founded upon either absence of any honest belief in the truth of the relevant representation or recklessness as to its truth would be rejected. 

Agent – Commercial agent. The Commercial Court awarded the claimant commercial agent damages for breach of contract, the termination of the agency on insufficient notice and compensation under reg 17 of the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993, SI 1993/3053. The defendant had not accepted the claimant's repudiatory breach as having brought an agency agreement to an end and had affirmed the agreement. 

Judicial review – Assisted suicide – Human rights. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in a judicial review petition by a petitioner who sought declarator that the Lord Advocate's failure to publish specific guidance on the facts and circumstances he would take into account in deciding whether to prosecute someone who assisted another to commit suicide was a breach of the petitioner's right to respect for his private life, the court held that the respondent had expressed his policy in a clear manner and it could not be said that he was exercising his discretion in a way which was arbitrary and did not meet the requirements of legality: the respondent's interference with the petitioner's right under art 8.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights was in accordance with the law in terms of art 8.2 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claim by the claimant customer against the defendant bank would be struck out as the claimant had accepted a settlement offer and received redress of over £420,000 from the defendant. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal regarding the respondent's application to extend his leave to remain as a Tier 4 (general student) migrant. Where a sponsor college's licence was revoked and a student then re-submitted his application for further leave to remain with a new confirmation of acceptance for studies from a new provider, that re-submitted application amounted to a variation of the purpose of his application for leave that fell within para 34E of the Immigration Rules. Therefore, the mandatory requirements of the Immigration Rules had to be met at the time of re-submission. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Commercial Court refused the claimant owner of a vessel's application for an anti-suit injunction to restrain the defendant purchaser of cargo shipped on the vessel from suing it in Nigeria in respect of losses it allegedly sustained after the vessel became grounded in Nigeria, causing delay in the delivery of the cargo. It held that the relevant time charter had been made between the owner and the charterer and the charterer had not entered into that agreement as an agent of the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant was not bound by the terms of the time charter to submit disputes to the jurisdiction of the English court. Further, there was no free-standing agreement between the owner and the defendant to refer disputes arising out of the carriage of the cargo to the jurisdiction of the English court. 

Personal injuries – Action. In the course of proceedings against the defendants for an injury in the course of employment, the Queen's Bench Division determined that the claimant had proved that he had suffered from an actionable psychiatric injury, namely, hysterical pseudodementia.