Latest Cases

Parent and child – Adoption. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by the natural father of a child against a sheriff's decision to grant a local authority's application for a permanence order with authority to adopt, the court rejected grounds of appeal contending that before making a permanence order the sheriff had failed to have regard to the appellant's capacity to look after the child; that he was not entitled to conclude on the facts of case that no order less than adoption would suffice, or that adoption was necessary rather than merely desirable or reasonable; and that he had failed to have regard to his duty to respect the family life of the appellant and the child. 

Burial – Body. The Chancery Division dismissed an appeal by parents of a deceased to set aside a decision by a deputy judge declaring that the claimant NHS Trust had lawful possession of the body of the deceased and was entitled to make arrangements for the funeral and disposal of the same. Among other things, there was no fair and reasonable basis for the conclusion that the post-mortem of the deceased had been misconducted and no extant proceedings, which would require the body either as evidence or to conduct further tests upon. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The Family Division allowed part of the wife's appeal in relation to payment of school fees but declined to overturn the judge's decision on the clean break that had been ordered. It further was prepared to admit a Calderbank offer on appeal having regard to the words of r 28.3(8) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, SI 2955/10. 

Immigration – Detention. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against the dismissal of his application for judicial review of his detention pending removal to Afghanistan, holding, among other things, that the detention of the claimant impugned in the proceedings had been lawful, as the defendant Secretary of State had been entitled to treat him as an adult. 

Variation of trusts – Jurisdiction. The Chancery Division, among other things, held that it had jurisdiction, under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958, to vary a family settlement because there was such a jurisdiction under the law of Kenya, which governed that settlement. As with the other three settlements, it was appropriate to approve the variation sought under the Act. 

Trust and trustee – Discretionary trust. The Chancery Division dismissed the appellant taxpayers' appeal against a determination of a liability for inheritance tax said to have arisen in relation to the ten-year charge applicable to trusts. It held that, on the correct interpretation of the Inheritance Act 1984, the property in question was not 'excluded property' and so the ten year charge applicable to trusts would apply. 

Companies – Shareholders – Unfair prejudice. Court of Session: In an application under s 996 the Companies Act 2006 in which minority shareholders sought an order for the purchase of their shares, alleging that the company's affairs had been conducted in manner unfairly prejudicial to their interests, the court held that the company could not properly be characterised as a quasi‑partnership, that conduct unfairly prejudicial to the petitioners' interests had been proved in some respects, although not in others, and that it was fair and reasonable to make an order for the purchase of the petitioners' shares at the lower of 75% of fair value and the subscription or par value paid for them. 

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court considered the claimant company's applications for freezing injunctions to prevent both of the defendant companies from selling a full label generic pregabalin product, thereby infringing the claimant's patent. The court held that, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to grant both injunctions. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the application for judicial review made by one of the 'Cuban Five' against the refusal of entry clearance to meet with United Kingdom parliamentarians (the MPs) to discuss his case. The refusal of entry clearance was a disproportionate interference with the MP's rights under art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which had not been sufficiently justified by the Secretary of State. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. Court of Session: Granting a judicial review petition by an Indian citizen who challenged the refusal of his application for leave to remain in the UK as the spouse of British citizen, the court held that the respondent had failed to attach enough importance to the rights of the petitioner's spouse and had not properly considered the close relationship the spouse had to have with her disabled mother, and that on any reasonable view it could not be said that the case would be bound to fail before an immigration judge.