Latest Cases

Feeds

Re R (Children) (Care proceedings: father's appeal against placement order)

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. 

National Iranian Tanker Company v European Council

European Union – Legal basis for regulation. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by the National Iranian Tanker Company for annulment of (i) Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP, amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran), in that the applicant had been listed in Annex II Decision 2010/413; and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 (implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran), in so far as that regulation concerned that company. 

Copas v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimants challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, affirming the refusal of planning permission for the construction of 23 affordable housing units. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had not unfairly used or misunderstood a written policy statement not considered in the hearing. Further, she had considered all relevant considerations in determining the weight to be attached to the availability of alternative sites. 

MacInnes, petitioner

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. 

Re Arcadia Group Pension Scheme; Arcadia Group Ltd v Arcadia Group Pension Trust Ltd and another

Pension – Pension scheme. Th Chancery Division held, among other things, that, in respect of the Arcadia Group Pension Scheme and the Arcadia Group Senior Executives Pension Scheme, the definitions of retail price index (RPI), applicable in respect of the schemes, operated to confer powers to select an index other than RPI, and that such power of selection was exercisable by the principal employer under the schemes and the trustee of the relevant scheme jointly. 

*Florea v Judicial Authority Carei Courthouse, Satu Mare County, Romania

Human rights – Inhuman or degrading treatment. The respondent judicial authority sought the appellant's return to Romania to serve a three-year sentence, which could potentially be served in the third most over-crowded Romanian prison. The senior district judge ordered the appellant's surrender to Romania and the appellant appealed. The Divisional Court ruled that to return a prisoner to serve three years in a collective cell where the personal space was approximately 1.5 metres would amount to a violation of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

McCann v The State Hospitals Board for Scotland

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. 

Zeman v Krajské riaditel'stvo Policajného zboru v Žiline

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union held, on a preliminary ruling, that Council Directive (EEC) 91/477 (on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons), as amended by Council and European Parliament Directive (EC) 2008/51, should be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that which was at issue in the main proceedings, which authorised the issue of a European firearms pass only to holders of weapons used for hunting and target shooting purposes. 

*R v Liverpool and another

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. 

Rawstron and another (Executrices of the Estate of Lucian Freud) v Freud

Will – Construction of will. The daughter and former solicitor of Lucian Freud as the executrices of his will, contended that the will was subject to a secret trust. They sought a declaration that, by the will, they were absolutely entitled to the deceased's residuary estate. The defendant contended that the residuary estate had been given to the claimants to hold on trust and that the trust was a half secret trust. The Chancery Division, in allowing the claim, held that, on the true construction of the will, the claimants were absolutely entitled to the deceased's residuary estate. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

Global gatherings

The Chair of the Bar reports back

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases