Latest Cases

Compensation – Criminal injuries. The Court of Protection held, in what was agreed to be a matter of general importance, that a deputy or an attorney acting on behalf of an applicant in regard to an award under the Criminal Injury Compensation Authority could accept and finalise a such an award on behalf of a patient. Section 20(3)(a) and further or alternatively s 20(3)(c) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 did not preclude a deputy from so doing. 

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. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed the claimant Indian national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision refusing her leave to remain in the United Kingdom. She had not had a 'parental relationship' with her grandchildren, despite the very close familial relationship between them and the Secretary of State had properly considered the grandchildren's best interest. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by The Cookware Company against a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Fissler GmbH and TCC concerning the application by the latter for registration of a figurative sign 'VITA+VERDE' as a Community trade mark. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against the dismissal of his claim for damages for personal injury. Among other things, it rejected his submission that the social utility factor could be taken into account only if the measures required to reduce the risk of harm would make it impossible to carry on the activity in question, as that put the matter too high. 

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.