Latest Cases

Customs and excise – Duties. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant taxpayer's appeal concerning the correct treatment and classification for customs purposes of certain specialised military clothing imported by the appellant, in respect of which it claimed to be entitled to relief from import duty. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Chancery Division granted the defendant firm of solicitors summary judgment in respect of claims for negligence, which had been brought by claimants who had acquired buy-to-let properties, where the manner in which they had paid court fees had been an abuse of process and where they had not done all that they reasonably could do to bring the matter before the court for its process to follow. 

Children and young persons – Jurisdiction. The Family Division held that where there had been wrongful retention by the father of the children in Somalia that wrongful retention did not change the fact that the children had habitual residence in the United Kingdom and therefore the courts of England and Wales had jurisdiction in regard to an application to return the children to the UK having regard to Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003. 

Insolvency – Cross-border insolvency. The Chancery Division held that foreign representatives and their advisers had to ensure that the valuable process for recognition under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, as incorporated into English law by the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 SI 2006/1030, was not misused. When seeking recognition, full and frank disclosure had to be made to the court in relation to the consequences that recognition of the foreign proceeding might have upon third parties who were not before the court. 

Local government – Statutory powers. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant autistic 15-year-old's judicial review proceedings, alleging that the defendant local authority's assessment had underestimated his and his mother's needs, and had failed to make proper provision for how those needs were to be met. Further, the authority had not breached its statutory duty to produce a care plan, as it would have been premature until the present proceedings had been determined. 

Company – Insolvency. The Chancery Division held that, on the facts, there was a strong case for liquidators of a company in creditors' voluntary liquidation proceeding to make distributions without regard to product liability claims that might emerge in the future. The liquidators were also granted relief under s 1157(2) of the Companies Act 2006. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The Administrative Court partially allowed the claimant's proceedings for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision rejecting his submissions as a fresh claim. However, it found that the claimant had been lawfully detained and that the Secretary of State had been entitled to issue removal directions before having determined the fresh claim. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant company's challenge to the decision of the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State, refusing planning permission for a mixed use development, including a supermarket, apartments and townhouses. The inspector's decision was short, clear, succinct and, having regard to the applicable principles, showed no evidence of unlawfulness or irrationality. 

Damages – Personal injury. The Queen's Bench Division found that the claimant was suffering from chronic widespread pain and additional mental illness and which he would not have suffered from but for the accident he experienced whilst in the army and which caused his subsequent discharge. On that finding the court made an award of general damages of £30,000 and other additional awards. 

Practice and procedure – Default judgment. The Technology and Construction Court set aside a judgment in default of acknowledgement of service, concerning a claim against a local authority in respect of structural damage to its property, where the defendant had a reasonable prospect of defending the claim, where it had acted with reasonable speed in making the application to set it aside and where allowing the judgment to stand might deprive the defendant of a good defence on the merits.