Latest Cases

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the provisions of the Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388, as amended by Council Directive (EC) 95/7. The request arose during proceedings between the applicant in the main proceedings and the French Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance, concerning the refusal to refund to the applicant the value added tax which it had paid in France for work which had been carried out in France. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The court dismissed the father's application to discharge care orders in respect of two children, E and N, and granted a placement order in respect of N. Prior to the hearing, the judge had declined to order an addendum report from the psychologist. The father appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that the refusal of a further report was well within the discretion of the judge and, further, it had not been demonstrated that the judge's conclusion as to the children's best interests had been wrong on the material available. 

European Union – Treaty provisions. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the declaration sought by the European Commission to the effect that by taking certain actions, including excluding members of a profession, dentists and physiotherapists from the scope of the Belgian Law of 14 July 1991 (on commercial practices, consumer information and consumer protection), as amended by the Belgian Law of 5 June 2007, transposing in national law Directive (EC) 2005/29, Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations under arts 2(b), (d), 3 and 4 of that directive. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against a costs order made at the conclusion of intellectual property litigation where the parties had incurred substantial costs. The court held, amongst other things, that the judge had rightly identified three aspects of the final order which had represented substantial improvements on a Calderbank offer made during the course of the proceedings and that it would not justify a departure from the usual rule that, if there was any order as to costs, the costs should be paid by the unsuccessful party. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The claimant national house building companies challenged the executive committee of the first defendant local authority's decision that a draft neighbourhood plan should be put to a referendum. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority had properly conducted a sustainability assessment, had met the relevant basic conditions and had set out its reasons for adopting a policy enabling managed housing growth. Further, the authority's examiner had not been biased. 

Pension – Equal treatment of men and women. The appellant male-to-female transsexual had not applied for a gender recognition certificate, as she did not wish to annul her existing marriage. Her application for a state pension at the pensionable age for a woman was refused on the basis that she was a man. The First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) and the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) dismissed her appeals. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the requirement to annul her marriage did not breach the principle of equal treatment in Council Directive (EEC) 79/7 and was not discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010. 

Time – Extension of time. Having failed in their claim for defamation, the claimants were granted an extension of time for filing their points of dispute in respect of the defendant's bill of costs. The defendant appealed that order, but it was dismissed. Subsequently, the defendant did successfully appeal the extension on the ground that the claimants had issued their application out of time and so had been seeking relief from sanctions, which the judge had been wrong to grant. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal as the application for an extension had been made in time and so there had been no relief from sanctions. The court gave guidance on changes to the CPR in respect of applications to extend time. 

Adoption – Application. Following an application by a married couple to adopt a child that had been living with them for nine years, the Family Division dispensed with the consent as required by the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and made the adoption order as on the facts the child was clearly thriving with the applicants. 

Employment – Discrimination. The appellant, B, brought a claim for race discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal in the employment tribunal (the tribunal). The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal, but allowed the other claims. B appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT). The EAT held that the tribunal had misdirected itself on the law, and held that there had been no victimisation. B appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the EAT, having identified the error of law, should have remitted the matter to the 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.