Latest Cases

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. 

Practice – Offer to settle. The Admiralty Court considered an application for a declaration that proceedings concerning a collision between two vessels had been compromised by the claimants' acceptance of an offer made by the defendants. The court declared, among other things, that the claim form had not been validly served and the court had no jurisdiction to try the claim. 

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. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division set aside an order by a master for service out side the jurisdiction in relation to a claim for libel and misuse of confidential information on the grounds of material non-disclosure mainly for the failure by the claimant to disclose his Serbian nationality. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendants' appeal against an order by which the judge granted summary judgment against the first defendant in the sum of £366,999 for goods ordered and supplied, but stayed enforcement of the judgment for any sums in excess of £300,000 pending the trial of the first defendant's counterclaim for damages based on the alleged late delivery and defective condition of the goods. 

Value added tax – Exemptions. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) ruled on the appeal by DPAS Ltd against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that DPAS did not make supplies of services within the exemption for transactions concerning payments or transfers to patients of dentists for whom DPAS provided practice-branded dental plans. The tribunal decided, among other things, that there was an agreement between DPAS and the existing patients who had signed and returned the relevant acceptance forms under which DPAS provided services to the patients in return for consideration. However, the issue as to whether such supplies were exempt would be reserved unil after the Court of Justice of the European Union had given its judgment in two similar cases. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Jaguar Land Rover Ltd (Jaguar) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, concerning the application by Jaguar for registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of a car as a Community trade mark. 

Injunction – Interim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, partially allowed the defendants' appeal against an interim injunction granted to the claimants in wide terms. The defendants' draft order had offered terms which adequately protected the claimant pending trial and the claimant's additions to the draft order were rejected. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between SIA 'Maxima Latvija' (Maxima Latvija) and the Latvian Competition Council concerning a fine imposed by it on Maxima Latvija for having concluded a series of commercial lease agreements with shopping centres; those agreements containing a clause having an anti-competitive object. 

Social Security – Benefit. The Administrative Court held that the failure to exempt at least individual family carers from the benefit cap on some who received carer's allowance, under Pt 8A of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, SI 2006/213, was unlawful because it amounted to indirect discrimination which was not objectively justifiable. However, the Regulations were not unlawful as disproportionate or unreasonable.