Latest Cases

Marriage – Foreign marriage. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed a wife's appeal against a declaration that her marriage by way of Nikah in Pakistan had been valid. On the new evidence presented, the decree absolute that had purported to end her previous marriage had been void as issued less than six weeks after the decree nisi. In any event, the amended date of decree absolute meant that the marriage had not been dissolved for the three month period required by Sharia law before a woman could re-marry. The matter would be remitted to consider whether the fact that her previous marriage had been a nullity due to the husband's bigamy had any impact upon the validity of the parties' marriage. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued a Decision Notice against the applicant director of a mortgage and insurance company stating that it had decided to: (a) withdraw his approval to perform controlled functions in relation to the company; and (b) make a prohibition order against him. The applicant contested the FCA's decision and referred the Decision Notice to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). The tribunal dismissed the reference, deciding that although the applicant had not been deliberately dishonest, he had lacked integrity in his business dealings and his dealings with the FCA. 

Judgment – Default of defence. The parties had issued cross-petitions to grant relief against unfairly prejudicial conduct of a company's affairs. During the proceedings, various interim orders were made, the effect of which was, ultimately, that judgment was entered against HRH Prince Abdulaziz Bin Mishal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (the Prince) in respect of a counterclaim, and his application to stay the judgment pending the trial of the petitions was refused. The Prince appealed against all of the interim orders made. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing his appeals, held, among other things, that the Prince could not rely on a protocol in Saudi Arabia that members of the royal family were prevented from signing court documents to avoid compliance with an order that he provide a signed witness statement. 

European Union – Discrimination. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that arts 45 and 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the TFEU) should be interpreted as precluding legislation of a member state, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in the case of businesses wishing to trade in military weapons and munitions, and broker the sale and purchase of such goods, members of their statutory representation bodies or their managing partner had to hold the nationality of that member state. It was for the national court, however, to verify whether the member state which, in order to justify that legislation, relied on the derogation allowed under art 346(1)(b) of the TFEU, was able to show that such derogation was necessary in order to protect its essential security interests. 

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. 

European Union – Imports. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 11(2)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) 338/97. The request had been made in the course of a dispute between Sofia Zoo and the Inspectorate General of the State for the Conservation of the Environment and Nature and for the Administration of Water, which concerned the latter's decision to order the confiscation of specimens of wild animals originating from Tanzania. 

National Health Service – Health authority. From 2006 until 2008, the claimant's late mother had been a resident at a nursing home. The defendant was asked by the claimant to review the position of his mother prior to her death in respect of her eligibility for continuing healthcare throughout her residence at the home. The defendant refused to assess her position between May 2007 and her death in 2008, and the claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the decision not to review the May and September assessments was irrational and unreasonable. 

Public Procurement – Public services contracts. The proceedings concerned a procurement for the provision of air traffic control services at Gatwick airport. A dispute arose as to the claimant company's tender. The Technology and Construction Court held that, among other things, the applicable test in the circumstances was that laid down in the case of American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504 , and that, in the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to lift an automatic suspensions provision preventing the defendant from entering into contracts with the successful tenderer. 

Contract – Construction. The parents' children attended the claimant school which was a fee paying school. When the parents failed to pay certain fees, the school brought an action for payment of a term's fees. The parents brought a defence and counterclaim alleging that the school was not entitled to recover the unpaid fees because it had acted in fundamental breach of contract, entitling the parents to rescind and/or repudiate the contract. The parents also made allegations of racial discrimination and bullying. The Queen's Bench Division held that on he facts and evidence, the school had not acted in breach of any of its three contracts. The defence and counterclaim had therefore had to fail. 

Copyright – Ownership. The claimant company issued proceedings, seeking remedies against the defendants for infringement of copyright and against the first defendant for breaches of contract. The defendants counterclaimed. The Chancery Division ruled on various issues arising out of copyright proceedings.