Latest Cases

Children and young persons – Parental orders. Following an application by the applicants, surrogate parents of the child, X, for a parental order, made outside of the time limit. The Family Division held that s 54(3) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, did not have the effect of preventing the court from making an order merely because the application had been made after the expiration of the six month time period. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Legal professional privilege. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed, in part, an appeal by Vincent Tchenguiz and others against a decision of the Commercial Court refusing them permission to make use of documents disclosed inadvertently by the Serious Fraud Office in the course of proceedings. The court held, amongst other things, that it had not been obvious that the documents, which were subject to legal professional privilege, had been disclosed by mistake. 

European Union – Community aid. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that the first paragraph of art 33 of Regulation 2419/2001 had to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of intentional irregularity found in an area aid application, the farmer was to be refused all of the aid to which that farmer would have been entitled under the aid scheme concerned by the application and for which the crop group concerned by that irregularity had been eligible. 

Unfair dismissal – Constructive dismissal. The employment tribunal allowed the employee's claim for constructive unfair dismissal on the basis that the employer's conduct of a disciplinary hearing which had resulted in the employee's dismissal had amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) upheld the employer's appeal against that decision on the grounds, amongst other things, that: (i) the tribunal had not considered whether the employee had resigned in response to that breach of contract; and (ii) the tribunal had wrongly concluded that the employee had affirmed the contract of employment. Accordingly, the matter was remitted for re-hearing before a fresh tribunal. 

Sentence – Murder. The defendants appealed against their sentences for conspiracy to rob and murder singer and songwriter, Joss Stone. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division allowed the appeals. It reduced the first defendant's sentence from life imprisonment with a minimum term of ten years and eight months for conspiracy to murder, with a concurrent determinate sentence of ten years' imprisonment for conspiracy to rob to a minimum term of four years and eight months, with a concurrent term of seven years' imprisonment. The second defendant's sentence of a determinate term of 18 years' imprisonment for conspiracy to murder with a concurrent term of eight years for the conspiracy to rob was reduced to ten years' imprisonment, with a concurrent term of five years' imprisonment. 

Criminal law – Trial. Following changes to the funding of legal aid in criminal cases, the defendants in a complex fraud trial were unable to obtain representation by counsel. The judge in the Crown Court stayed the proceedings. The Financial Conduct Authority, as prosecuting authority appealed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the appeal. To conclude that the state had violated the process of the court or that what had happened had jeopardised the integrity of the criminal justice system (as opposed to its effective operation) was wrong as a matter of principle. Further, on closer analysis, the judge had been wrong to find that there was no realistic prospect of competent advocates with sufficient time to prepare being available in the foreseeable future. 

Injunction – Interim injunction. The claimant was the freehold owner of a piece of empty land (the adjoining plot) immediately adjacent to a property in Holland Park, which was owned by the defendant management company. The defendant sought an interim injunction to prevent the claimant from applying for planning permission to build a house which she proposed to build on the adjoining plot. The Chancery Division, refusing the application, held that that difference in the risk of unquantifiable damage pointed firmly in favour of not granting the injunction, in particular, having regard to various undertakings which the claimant had offered. 

Misrepresentation – Deceit. The claimant brought a claim against the defendant, alleging that he had been induced into lending him money in respect of the purchase of a leasehold penthouse in London and into signing a declaration of trust in respect of it, in circumstances where the defendant had not disclosed that a bank had appointed receivers in connection with the property. The Chancery Division set aside the declaration of trust, ruling that the misrepresentations alleged had been proved. 

Insurance – Broker. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's claim for breach of contract and/or negligence against the defendant insurance brokers in circumstances where the claimant's business was found to be grossly under-insured following a fire. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The respondent mother, SU, had a child, Z, with her partner, DE. The applicant local authority had removed SU's seven previous children in care proceedings. Following Z's birth, she was placed under an interim care order, but rehabilitation proceedings were later commenced. The authority then directed that rehabilitation stop, despite nothing untoward having occurred, and sought a care order and a placement order. The Family Court, in dismissing the application, held that adoption would be entirely inappropriate and that Z should return to live with her parents.