Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division made an order by consent which put in place a fresh reporting restrictions order, in place of that which already existed, and amended an order made under the Children Act 1989 in circumstances where a dispute had arisen between a mother and a male couple who had entered into a private arrangement which had resulted in the birth of a child. The new order allowed the mother, to a limited, defined extent to communicate with the press and provide photographs of herself and the child, so long as they were sufficiently obscured. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division held that there had been non-compliance with a court order both in the past and continuing into the present and that as a result of that non-compliance the defendant would be committed for contempt of court despite residing in a foreign jurisdiction. 

Company – Administrator. The Chancery Division ruled that an individual, as the holder of a properly executed and authorised qualifying floating charge, had had power to appoint administrators and that the appointments, and all ensuing acts, had been valid. A debenture, amounting to the qualifying floating charge, had both been signed, although not then dated, when one of the two signatories had still been a director of the company and, notwithstanding that it had been given a later date, s 44 of the Companies Act 2006, requiring 'two authorised signatories', had been complied with. The later delivery of the loan agreement and debenture as a deed did not require any form of execution but merely required board authority, which had been evidenced from the minutes of a board meeting. 

European Union – Copyright. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive (EC) 2001/29. The request had been made in proceedings between Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL (Hewlett-Packard) and Reprobel SCRL (Reprobel) concerning the recovery by Reprobel from Hewlett-Packard of sums corresponding to the fair compensation owed under exceptions to the reproduction right. 

Town and country planning – Development. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellants' appeal, holding that the judge's construction of the meaning of 'dependants' in an agricultural occupancy condition attached to planning permission in respect of a dwelling at a farm had been correct. The condition had not imposed a requirement as to the continuing profitability of the business in which the agricultural worker was employed. 

Public order – Football. The Administrative Court, in allowing the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's appeal against a limited football banning order, held that the justices had had no power to make a football banning order that had been limited to matches played between three named clubs. Further, no rights under the European Convention on Human Rights were engaged and a comparison with anti-social behaviour order legislation was rejected. 

Conflict of Laws – Jurisdiction. The Technology and Construction Court ruled that an application to strike out the second claimant company's claim for contribution, under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, in respect of its liability to owners of property damaged in fires, failed where the breaches of duty alleged against it had all occurred within the UK and, accordingly, the English Court had jurisdiction, under art 7(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast) to hear the claim. In respect of the first defendant, the claim clearly involved matters relating to a contract and, accordingly, the defendant had be sued in Italy, being the member state in which it was domiciled. 

Practice – Pleadings. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant company's application to amend it's particulars of claim and ordered disclosure in respect of a claim for misrepresentation and breach of contract concerning the conduct of the defendant Royal Bank of Scotland in setting LIBOR. The court refused the defendant's application to amend its defence, but accepted its submission that it was open to a party to decide not to rely upon privileged material and, therefore, amend the relevant pleading, in which case, if the amended pleading was permitted, no waiver would have taken place merely by virtue of it having been pleaded before. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Bukovansky, a German national, and the Lörrach Tax Office regarding the decision whereby the latter had taxed Mr Bukovansky's employment income in Germany for the period after he had transferred his residence from Germany to Switzerland. 

European Union – Copyright. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 3(1) of Directive (EC) 2001/29. That application had been presented in proceedings between SBS Belgium NV and the Belgian society for authors, composers and editors, regarding the obligation to pay a fair amount for the transmission of programmes via the technique of direct injection.