Latest Cases

Practice – Family proceedings. The Family Division allowed a wife's application for the committal to prison of her husband for failure to comply with two specific disclosure orders in ancillary relief proceedings. The orders had been validly served by email as ordered by the court and the application notice had been served by the same method. The judge dispensed with the need for personal service and concluded that he was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the husband had not only failed to comply, but had been defiant in his refusal. The sentence was backed by a request for a European arrest warrant. 

Immigration – Detention. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant Home Office's appeal, upheld the judge's finding that the claimant minor had been unlawfully detained in immigration detention. In particular, the material available to the defendant had not been sufficient to meet the Age Assessment guidance and, therefore, the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance or to enable the defendant to carry out its independent duty to satisfy itself that the assessment had been Merton-compliant. 

Practice – Procedure. The Chancery Division dismissed the defendants' application for summary judgment on a claim by investors of a Jersey Trust, which alleged that the defendants were liable for the loss of the entire value of their investment due to a breach of duty to take all reasonable care to ensure that facts stated in an information memorandum (IM), given to potential investors, were true and accurate. Even if the court was required to apply settled law and identify the direct consequences of the valuation being inaccurate, the claimants had real prospects of establishing that the loss they had suffered on their investment was attributable to the alleged inadequacies in the IM and, accordingly, the case should go to trial. 

Order – Amendment. The Technology and Construction Court, in a case concerning the interpretation of a complex contract, dismissed the defendant's application to amend an order that there be a statement of agreed facts by adding a requirement that it should include background matters relevant to the dispute and a chronology of factual matrix documentation. The amendment sought was unnecessary and unduly prescriptive as well as going beyond what was contemplated by the order that there be a statement of agreed facts. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that Directive (EC) 97/67 should be interpreted as meaning that a money order service by which the sender, in the present proceedings, the state, transferred sums of money to a beneficiary through the postal operator entrusted with providing the universal postal service did not fall within the scope of that directive. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Dyson Ltd against the European Commission for annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013, supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection authorised the use of necessary physical restraint as would enable the investigations in a medical hospital to be carried out on the patient who was being detained under s 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division refused to grant injunctions in respect of proprietary claims, on the basis that there was no serious issue to be tried and that it was not just and convenient to grant a freezing injunction. 

Drugs – Drug trafficking. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the opening words of s 79(2) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, should be interpreted as if they read 'where, before or after a period of imprisonment or other detention has been imposed'. 

Company – Winding up. The Companies Court allowed the applicant company's application to restrain the presentation of a winding-up petition made against it. In the circumstances, the inquiries of fact and context required would be far better dealt with by ordinary process. A petition for winding up was not a suitable or even proper way to proceed.