Latest Cases

Criminal law – Defence. The Divisional Court refused the claimant's application for a declaration that the effect of the 'householder's defence' in s 76(5A) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 was incompatible with art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Section 76(5A) of the Act did not direct that any degree of force less than grossly disproportionate was reasonable and there were reasonable safeguards against the commission of offences against the person in householder cases. 

Construction contract – Arbitration. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claimant company's application for summary judgment to enforce the decision of an adjudicator in a case relating a woodworking machine. The court held that the defendant company had an arguable case that the adjudicator had lacked jurisdiction, because the machine did fulfil the criteria of a 'structure' under the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, but did not form part of the claimant's land, so that its installation at the claimant's premises had not been a 'construction operation' within the meaning of the Act. 

Immigration – European Economic Area nationals. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a finding of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (FTT) that the appellant Brazilian national had entered into a marriage of convenience with a Portuguese national in order to re-enter and remain in the United Kingdom. While the legal burden of proof lay on the Secretary of State throughout, the evidential burden could shift. The errors in law made by the FTT had not been material to the outcome. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2(35)(d), 17(1) and 50 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2008. The request had been made in proceedings between SC Total Waste Recycling SRL and the National Inspectorate of Environment and Nature, concerning an administrative fine imposed by the latter for infringements of the rules on shipments of waste. 

Adoption – Order. The Family Division made an adoption order in respect of a seven-and-a-half year old child. Having taken all the relevant factors into account, it was clear that only an adoption order was consistent with the child's best interests and there was no other order which would do. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the declaration sought by the European Commission that by failing: (i) to include all the territories of the IPAS in the special protection area covering the Kaliakra region; (ii) approving the implementation of certain projects; (iii) to assess properly the cumulative effects of those projects, Bulgaria had failed to fulfil its obligations under art 6(2) of Council Directive (EEC) 92/43, art 4(1), (2), (4) of Directive (EC) 2009/147 and arts 2(1), 4(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/92/EU. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court granted the claimant's application for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's award in its favour for works it had carried out works, under a construction contract, for the defendant. When considering whether to enforce adjudicators' decisions, a distinction had to be drawn between jurisdictional challenges to enforcement and challenges alleging substantive error. The adjudicator in the present case had had jurisdiction because, however, the contractual arrangements between the parties were correctly to be described, they mandated the use of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 and the adjudicator had been properly appointed by the scheme's procedure. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Chancery Division, following an earlier judgment dismissing the appellants' appeal against the decision of a deputy master that he did not have power to make an order for disclosure under CPR 31.16, held that the appellants had to pay the respondents £16,000 in costs. Those costs took account of the appellants' costs in the respondents' unsuccessful application for permission to cross-appeal. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection appointed a non-family member to be a trustee and deputy of property and affairs in respect of the patient, A on the basis that no suitable family member was presently willing to act as A's deputy and it would be in A's best interests. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, read in conjunction with art 16(1) of that regulation. The request had been made in the course of proceedings between, on the one hand, Mr Hobohm, domiciled in Germany, and, on the other hand, Benedikt Kampik Ltd & Co. KG, Mr Kampik and Mar Mediterraneo Werbe- und Vertriebsgesellschaft für Immobilien SL, established in Spain, concerning the repayment of sums of money made available to Mr Kampik by Mr Hobohm for the purchase of an apartment in Spain on behalf of Mr Hobohm.