Latest Cases

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a father's appeal against an order permitting his former partner to relocate to Abu Dhabi with their two children. The court confirmed that the law on penalties did not apply to stipulations for payment of money upon the happening of a specified event other than a breach of a contractual duty owed by the contemplated payor to the contemplated payee, therefore, a charge over the mother's husband's property in favour of the father, to be triggered in the event of breach of the court order, would not be unenforceable. Further, wardship, in the circumstances, was inappropriate and would be replaced by a child arrangements order. 

Extradition – Discharge. The Divisional Court dismissed the United States of America's appeal against the discharge of the respondent from extradition to face trial for 19 charges of sexual assault allegedly committed against an adolescent boy. The requesting state's assurance was insufficient to obviate the risk of a flagrant breach of the respondent's rights under art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the danger of being subjected to a civil commitment order. 

Counsel – Disciplinary jurisdiction. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant barrister's appeal against a three-month suspension for professional misconduct. The conduct described had been seriously below the standard to be expected of a barrister and there were no grounds for interfering with the decision. 

Judgment – Enforcement. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was entitled to enforce a judgment obtained in the United States against the defendant in the jurisdiction of England and Wales. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the principles applicable to cases where a parent wished to relocate with his or her child within the United Kingdom were the same as those applicable to cases where a parent sought to relocate outside the United Kingdom: namely the welfare of the child was paramount. There was no rule that internal relocation could only be refused in exceptional circumstances, and the proportionality of any interference with a parent's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights should be considered as part of the same balancing exercise, and not separately. 

European Union – Enforcement of judgment. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's application for a declaration that the defendant, who had succeeded in proceedings in France, was not entitled to have that judgment recognised or enforced in the English courts. The allegations concerned did not give rise to an infringement of the claimant's rights at variance to an unacceptable degree with the legal order of England and Wales. 

Costs – Assessment. The Queen's Bench Division held that the master had erred in principle in his decision in relation to the costs namely whether a retrospective success fee was allowable in all the circumstances of the case before him. In that respect the master had been wrong as there was no basis for any conclusion that the risk was different in December 2012 to that which had existed in July. 

Environment – Protection. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant Seiont, Gwyrfai and Llyfni Anglers' Society's application for judicial review, held that 'damage', as defined in art 2(2) of Parliament and Council Directive (CE) 2004/35 was restricted to a deterioration in the environmental situation and did not include the prevention of an existing, already damaged environmental state from achieving a level which was acceptable in environmental terms or a deceleration in such achievement. 

Damages – Assessment. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was entitled to damages for pain suffering and loss of amenity, damages for treatment expenses and funeral expenses in the sum of £7,113.17 on behalf of the father's estate following his death at the second defendant hospital. 

Employment – Transfer of employment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing an employee's appeal, held that the tribunal had not erred in ruling that because an employee, who had been on long term sick leave, had not contributed to the economic activity of a company's grouping he not assigned to that grouping and his employment had not transferred to a new employer within meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246.