Latest Cases

Crown – Prerogative. The Administrative Court quashed the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse to renew the claimant's passport. In the unusual circumstances, the passport office had been duty bound to proceed on more than the information supplied by the Office of National Statistics, as other information had also been relevant and ought to have been considered. 

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy High Court granted the applicant discharged bankrupt permission to bring an action against the respondent, the released joint trustee in bankruptcy, under s 304 of the Insolvency Act 1986 for an order that he repay, restore or account for money or pay a sum by way of compensation in respect of misfeasance or breach of fiduciary duty in carrying out his functions as trustee. There was evidence to suggest that the applicant had a reasonably meritorious cause of action against the respondent on the basis of his having incurred and paid legal fees in excess of what he had had authority to incur. 

Guarantee – Construction. The Commercial Court interpreted the effect of art 97.2 of the Spanish Act on Insolvency 22/2003 dated 9 July 2003. It held that the Spanish Act did not operate to extinguish a guarantee as a guarantee granted by a third party and that the claimants were entitled to judgment on the claim. 

Family Proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a father's appeal against the recorder's dismissal of his application to enforce indirect contact with his children. The recorder could not be criticised for having rejected an application for 'enforcement' which, in the circumstances, had not been capable of effective enforcement. 

Immigration – European Economic Area nationals. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed a Nigerian national's appeal against a finding by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) that the First-tier Tribunal had been entitled to conclude that his marriage to a European national had been one of convenience. The documentary evidence had established a strong prima facie case that the appellant and his wife had lived together and the evidence in favour of an alternative finding had not been capable of forming a sufficient basis to reject that documentary evidence. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division refused the father's application for the summary return of his son C to Saudi Arabia on the basis that C wished to remain with the mother who was determined to remain in the United Kingdom and if C was returned, Sharia law would possibly prevent the mother taking C out of the jurisdiction. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division held that, on the facts, it had jurisdiction under, alternatively arts 4, 5 or 7 of Council Regulation (EC) 4/2009 in a case relating to maintenance obligations for a wife and child. Further orders were made. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for her extradition to Romania to serve a sentence of four years' imprisonment for drug offences. She would be entitled to a retrial, her extradition would not constitute inhuman or degrading punishment, and there had been no disproportionate interference with her and her children's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The Family Division held that there was no substance in any of the mother's suggested 'defences' or exceptions to an order for summary return of a child. The child had to go back to his country of habitual residence for the courts there to resolve the dispute about where he should live and with whom, as well as the mother's application to deprive the father of parental responsibility. 

Evidence – Medical evidence. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed an appeal of the defendant in regard to the decision of a master in a 'show cause' hearing in a mesothelioma claims provided for in CPR 6 PD 3.6D. The master had been entitled to reach the conclusion on the evidence presented to him and also in the light of his experience in dealing with cases of that nature. It was possible that another master would have permitted the case to go to trial, but that was not the test.