Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection allowed the application of K, the daughter of the patient, G, to be her deputy for property and affairs. Having regard to the need to consider G's wishes under s 4(6)(a) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the views of anyone caring for the G under s 4(7)(a) of the Act, the court held that there was no impediment to K's appointment and that it was in G best interests. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission to extend a development, including by constructing a testing and evaluation track for performance cars. The Planning Court held that conditions had failed to give effect to the authority's intention to impose controls with respect to the variable character of the noise, but refused to quash the planning permission. 

Practice – Appeal. The parties had agreed by consent that an appeal against a judge's decision that the respondent was not being deprived of her liberty should be allowed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, made a consent order. The judge then reserved the matter to himself and delivered a new judgment, which stated that the Court of Appeal had acted ultra vires in making a consent order without a hearing. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the substantive issue and held that the original court had not acted ultra vires. 

Housing – Homeless person. The European Court of Human Rights held that the determination of the applicant's entitlement to accommodation under Pt VII of the Housing Act 1996 had been a determination of a 'civil right' for the purposes of art 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and the local housing authority's decision that it had discharged its duty to her under Pt VII of the Act had been subject to judicial scrutiny of sufficient scope to satisfy the requirements of art 6(1). 

Costs – Order for costs. In an earlier judgment, the court had dismissed a claim by the claimant company (the company) and had given judgment for the defendant on its counterclaim. The Commercial Court allowed the defendant's application for a non-party costs order against the managing director and sole shareholder of the company, where he had been in the position to control the proceedings. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Chancery Division considered an application for approval of a cross-border merger. It held that, notwithstanding that there were outstanding conditions, the merger was one that the court ought to approve. 

Limitation of action – Accrual of cause of action. The appellant's claim for unpaid salary had been only partly successful as the judge found that the majority of the claim was time-barred as the contract provided for monthly payment of salary. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed his appeal. The judge had erred in deciding the limitation issue before hearing the appellant's application to strike out the limitation defence and, on the facts, the breach of contract that had given rise to the cause of action had been the respondent's failure to make payment of the whole sum due at the point when the appellant had left its employ. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Chancery Division ruled that the Revenue and Customs Commissioners should pay to the test claimants in the FII group litigation 75% of their costs of the first of three references to the Court of Justice of the European Union and 65% of their costs of liability proceedings in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. A freezing injunction had been made in respect of a company of which MW was director. The company and MW were found to be in contempt of the order because of disputed payments made in discharge of repayment of a loan and for outstanding arrears of rent. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal by the company and MW on the grounds that the judge had taken too narrow a view of the payments which had, in the circumstances, been made in the ordinary course of business and so fell within an exception to the freezing order. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division considered the relevant law in relation to arts 8 and 14 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 and the Family Law Act 1986 and found that on the facts, that despite the English courts having jurisdiction in respect of the child by virtue of her presence in England at the time proceedings were issued pursuant to art 14 of the Regulation and s 3(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1986, the court was nevertheless satisfied, on the facts, that the appropriate forum for determining the substantive issues between the parties was the jurisdiction of South Korea.