Latest Cases

Child – Order. The Chinese mother applied to the court for permission to take the child J on holiday to China. The father objected on the basis that there was a risk of abduction. Having regard to the welfare checklist in s 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, the Family Court held that it was in J's best interest to travel to travel to China in the summer. It was important that she kept contact with her Chinese heritage. Further there was no evidence of abduction. 

Administration of estates – Payment. Following the death of W, a locum doctor, the appellant NHS authority submitted that money had been overpaid to W's executors and needed to be returned. The deputy pensions ombudsman held that repayment was not necessary. The authority appealed. The Chancery Division held that, while the ombudsman had acted within her powers, there were no grounds for limiting the authority's entitlement to repayment to the net assets of the estate, and her decision to that effect would be set aside. 

Practice – Hearing. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to propose to the European Union Council of Ministers to add their names to a list of designated individuals against whom freezing orders would be made as part of international sanctions against Iran. The Secretary of State sought a declaration, under s 6(2) of the Justice and Security Act 2013, for an order that a closed material procedure could be used. The Administrative Court, in making the declaration, held that the conditions under s 6(4) and (5) of the Act had been met, as the material in question was sensitive and there was no practicable alternative to a closed material procedure if the case was to be fairly tried. 

National Health Service – Health authority. The claimant issued proceedings for judicial review, seeking a ruling that the defendant clinical commissioning group (the CCG) had an obligation, under s 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006, to provide her with accommodation as part of the health care package with which it should provider her free of charge under the NHS. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, given pending Court of Protection proceedings to determine the claimant's capacity, it was too early to say that the CCG was bound in law to find that the claimant had a reasonable requirement of accommodation which needed to be met out of NHS resources. 

Judicial review – Pilot's authorisation – Disciplinary/revocation procedure. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition by a River Forth pilot who was placed on a 12-month performance review following four marine incidents in 2012, and then given notice of intention to revoke his pilot's authorisation by the harbour authority following a fifth incident, the court preferred the respondents' construction of the Pilotage Code of Practice, held that on that construction the code had not been complied with, but concluded that such failures as there had been did not invalidate the decisions and procedure to date. 

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that EU law had to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which ordinary courts were under a duty, if they considered a national statute to be contrary to art 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to apply to the constitutional court for that statute to be generally struck down, to the extent that the priority nature of that procedure prevented all the other national courts or tribunals from exercising their right of fulfilling their obligation to refer questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling. Further, an appearance entered by a representative in absentia did not amount to an appearance being entered by a defendant for the purposes of art 24 of the Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001. 

Mental health – Human rights. Court of Session: Allowing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings by a patient who was detained indefinitely in the State Hospital, challenging a decision to implement a comprehensive ban on smoking there, the court held that the Lord Ordinary had erred in holding that the respondents did not have the power to implement the prohibition on smoking under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, and in holding that art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged, or, if it was, that there had been disproportionate interference with the petitioner's rights. 

Shipping – Cargo. The Commercial Court determined preliminary issues concerning a claim by the claimant owner of a vessel to enforce the terms of a letter of undertaking, which had been provided by defendant time charterer of the vessel to the owners by way of security for the potential liability of cargo interests in general average. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant had been accepted by a junior academy of a well know football club when he sustained an injury which required surgery. Following the operation, he underwent a rehabilitation programme under the supervision of the club physiotherapist. The injury failed to resolve satisfactorily and the claimant was left with a knee which was unfit to withstand the rigours of a professional football career and had abandoned any lingering hope he had to pursue such a career following the catastrophic happenings to his knee. The claimant brought a claim in negligence against the general practitioner, the physiotherapist and the club. The Queen's Bench Division held that it was impossible to hold that the claimant has established any breach of duty against the second defendant and thus the third defendant. The admitted negligence of the first defendant had caused 50% of the septic arthritis induced damage to the claimant's knee. 

European Union – Customs and Excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 9(1) of Council Directive (EEC) 92/12, as amended, read in conjunction with art 7 of that directive, should be interpreted as allowing a member state to designate as liable to excise duty a person who held for commercial purposes, on the fiscal territory of that state, products subject to excise duty that had been released for consumption in another member state, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, even though that person had not been the first holder of those products in the member state of destination.