Latest Cases

Parent and child – International child abduction. Court of Session: Refusing a father's petition for an order for the return to Australia of his two daughters, aged six and eight, who had been wrongfully removed to Scotland by their mother, the court held that the father had acquiesced in the wrongful removal of the children, that evidence of what occurred during mediation held in Scotland was admissible, and that it would not be appropriate to return the children from Scotland to Australia. 

Criminal law – Prosecutor. The claimant sought permission for judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Service's (the CPS) decision to prosecute him for rape, despite a previous decision not to proceed, and a judge's decision not to adjourn the hearing pending the determination of that challenge. The Divisional Court, in refusing permission, held that it was not remotely arguable that the CPS's decision had been irrational or unreasonable and the separate challenge to the judge's decision fell because that challenge failed. The judgment was citable as authoritative in relation to the proper approach to the Director of Public Prosecution's guidance on a victim's right to review and to claims made in respect of decisions to charge where the original decision had been not to charge. 

Coroner – Inquest. The claimant applied for judicial review, seeking the quashing of an inquest's conclusion that her son had taken his own life while in custody. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inquest had been complaint with art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the defendant coroner's directions to the jury had not been wrong. 

Immigration – Appeal. The appellants had been refused permission to seek judicial review of the certification of their human rights claims under s 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed their appeals, but dismissed the substantive judicial review applications. The court gave guidance on the interpretation of s 94B and its interplay with art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division having regard to the competing rights in arts 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights granted a without notice interim non-disclosure order in respect of explicit material being threatened to be put into the public domain following the break up of a relationship of a well know actor. 

Bank – Duty of care. The Mercantile Court dismissed the claimants' case against the defendant bank for compensation for their losses on the sale of their investment portfolio. The court held that in giving the advice that it had done the defendant had not acted negligently, in breach of contract, or in breach of its statutory duties under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Conduct of Business Sourcebook Rules. 

Repudiation – Implied repudiation. The Commercial Court held that the defendant television company had wrongfully terminated the claimant company's contract with it. The events that the defendant had described as fundamental breaches of the agreement between the parties had not been, and so the defendant had not been entitled to terminate the agreement. In purporting to do so, it had itself been in repudiatory breach of the agreement. 

Damages – Personal injury. The Queen's Bench, in a case where a previously injured claimant suffered further injuries as a result of the actions of the defendant NHS Trust, approved a settlement between the claimant and the defendant in respect of the injuries as the claimant was a protected party and the rules required such approval. 

Insolvency – Company. The Chancery Division, in granting a bank's application to restore a company to the register of companies, ruled that, where the Crown disclaimed property vested in it following the dissolution of a company, that disclaimer, under s 1012 of the Companies Act 2006, was not a 'disposition' of property, and the effect of restoration of the company to the register was that its freehold estate was retrospectively re-created and re-vested in the company in all respects as if it had never been dissolved and as if the freehold had never been disclaimed. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Societe des produits Nestle SA against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word mark 'NOURISHING PERSONAL HEALTH'.