Latest Cases

Divorce – Financial provision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant husband's appeal in respect of one element of an order, which provided for an automatic increase in the level of periodical payments payable to the respondent wife following the date upon which the youngest child ceased privately funded secondary education. The judge had been wrong as a matter of law, and plainly wrong in the exercise of his discretion, by having made an advance variation order based upon only one known element with respect to the parties' finances, and the needs of the youngest child, some four years hence. 

European Union – Commercial policy. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the validity and interpretation of: (i) Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006; (ii) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, following an expiry review pursuant to art 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96; and (iii) art 236 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. The requests had been made in two sets of proceedings, brought by C & J Clark International Ltd (Clarks) against the United Kingdom Revenue and Customs Commissioners and by Puma SE (Puma) against the Principal Customs Office, Nuremberg, relating to the anti-dumping duty paid by Clarks and Puma, pursuant to the regulations in dispute, when importing footwear with uppers of leather into the European Union. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of approximately nine months for offences of robbery, criminal damage and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. As the appellant had served the remainder of his sentence on remand, it would be disproportionate to his rights under art 8 of the Convention to order his extradition. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that a confiscation order, with a term of imprisonment to be imposed in default, to recover the value of a tainted gift which appeared to be nil at the date of the order had not been manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. In fact, the confiscation order was deemed proportionate in the circumstances. 

Solicitor – Duty. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against a finding that two solicitors had been guilty of dishonest assistance in a breach of trust in a mortgage fraud. The honesty of those solicitors was to have been assessed as against what they had believed the facts to have been, and the judge had not made findings on all of that knowledge or belief. Further, he had failed to deal with what was, potentially, a good defence. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division substantially refused the defendant's application for leave to appeal against his two convictions for doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to common law. However, the court had been unable to determine whether leave should be granted on one ground of appeal, thus, that ground would be adjourned with directions, for a further hearing. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division refused an application made by the paternal uncle of two young children for leave to revoke placement orders. The court held that there probably had been a change of circumstances, but, in considering the second stage, namely, whether the discretion to grant leave should be exercised, in all the circumstances, the application would be refused. 

Building contract – Construction. The Technology and Construction Court made three preliminary rulings concerning limitation in a case involving defects in the construction of residential properties. It ruled on the time when the cause of action had accrued and held that, on the true construction of clause 2.5.5 of the relevant building contract, there was one single cause of action. The clause did not operate to preclude claims for defects, whether in contract or in tort, from being brought against the defendant after expiry of the relevant warranty period. 

Prison – Discipline. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant serving young offender's challenge to the defendant Independent Adjudicator's ruling that the defence of duress was not available to his disciplinary proceedings for the unauthorised possession of alcohol. The principles underlying the general distinction between criminal and disciplinary offences told strongly in favour of treating the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000, SI 2000/3371, and the Prison Rules 1999, SI 1999/278, as separate non-criminal disciplinary codes for the purpose of the application of the common law defence of duress. 

Guarantee – Bank guarantee. The Technology and Construction Court considered the claimant oil company's application for summary judgment against the defendant bank (Barclays) on a claim for payment under the guarantee. The guarantee had been issued as security for a company's performance of its obligations to the claimant under a contract for work on an oil field. The court ruled that it was not a pre-requisite to the validity of the claimant's demand that the claimant had to make a statement that no amendment had been made to the contract impacting the timely performance of the works under the contract. Such a declaration was irrelevant to Barclays' obligation under the guarantee.