Latest Cases

Local authority – Statutory powers. The claimant, a 16-year-old young woman, had been living with a maternal aunt and uncle, and subsequently went to stay with a paternal aunt. The defendant local authority concluded that the claimant was not a looked after child and, therefore, was not eligible for certain financial allowances. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the evidence showed that the claimant was not a looked after child and that the authority had not sought to sidestep its duties. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant was convicted of the alleged historical sexual abuse of his step-daughter. He appealed, relying on the fresh evidence of a man who also worked at the workshop where the abuse had allegedly occurred. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissing his appeal against conviction, held that the fresh evidence did not render the conviction unsafe, since the evidence did not establish that the assaults could not have taken place. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant had invested in a fund operated by the defendant, a Gibraltar company, which had lost all its capital. The claimant brought a claim in negligence and breach of contract against the defendant and served the claim form, without permission, outside the jurisdiction under CPR 6.33(2)(b)(iii) and art 23 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001. The Commercial Court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the service of the claim where the claimant had a good arguable case that there had been a concluded agreement, within art 23 of the Regulation. 

Patent – Validity. The Patents Court considered challenges to the legitimacy of a patent for a treatment of asthma. It held that a challenge to the patent based on anticipation would be dismissed. However, a challenge to the patent on grounds of obviousness was made out and the patent was therefore invalid. A number of amended claims put forward by the owner of the patent would be rejected. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The appeal concerned the amended Immigration Rules that required a UK spouse or partner to meet a minimum income requirement before their non-EEA partner would be permitted leave to enter the United Kingdom to join them. The Administrative Court had held that there was substantial merit in the contention that the amendments amounted to a disproportionate interference with the UK partners' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but did not grant declaratory relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had erred in his analysis and had reached the wrong conclusion on compatibility. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The defendants had been convicted of robbery. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, following a reference by the Attorney General pursuant to s 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held that the judge had erred by deciding that the sentences should be discounted by 50% because he had been sentencing 'lesser offenders'. Although the defendants' precise roles in the robbery had been difficult to define, the evidence had established, at the very least, their full and significant involvement. Consequently, the sentence for each of the three defendants would be five years' imprisonment. 

Child – Welfare. Following the removal of his brain tumour, the parents of A, a boy aged five, disputed the hospital's proposed further treatment. They, before removing him to Spain, proposed therapy generally unavailable in the United Kingdom and A's referral to a facility in Prague. On the local authority's application, the judge made A a ward of the court and ordered a further hearing. Following receipt of further information, the Family Division held that there was no reason to stand in the way of the parents' proposal. Both proposed courses were reasonable and it was the parents who bore the heavy responsibility of making a decision. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant was pregnant, a drug addict and HIV positive. She appealed against the district judge's order for her extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of 14 months' imprisonment for three offences of theft. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that a number of factors, coupled with the pregnancy of which the judge had been unaware, meant that the case fell into the category where the interference with rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was exceptionally serious so as to justify the refusal to extradite, as it would be disproportionate in the present case. 

Nuisance – Sewer. During construction work in Newcastle, concrete used to make building supports by the defendant company escaped into a sewer controlled by the claimant company. The claimant brought proceedings in nuisance and negligence. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claim. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had not erred in dismissing the claim. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. S, aged 15, left her mother in Mexico for London with the practical and financial assistance of her father. The mother applied for a summary return of S to Mexico, but S objected on the basis that she was not receiving a reasonable education in Mexico. The Family Division, in allowing the application, held that there had been a wrongful removal or retention. While taking account of S's views, the relevant considerations pointed clearly to S returning to Mexico.