Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection dismissed an application by the patient's daughter to a joint appointment as deputy with her brother, or the appointment of a completely independent professional deputy on the basis that having regard to s 6(8) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the daughter had failed to discharge the burden of satisfying the court that the brother had behaved in a way that had contravened his authority or was not in the patient's best interests. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union precluded legislation of a member state, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the context of the taxation of a group of companies, allowed a parent company, in the case of the acquisition of a holding in a resident company which became a member of such a group, to depreciate the goodwill up to a maximum of 50% of the purchase price of the holding, while such depreciation was prohibited in the case of the acquisition of a holding in a non-resident company. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division following a consideration of the correct procedure, gave an NHS Trust leave to apply under s 10(2)(b) of the Children Act 1989 for an order that the trust could apply seeking permission under the inherent jurisdiction of the court to perform urgent surgery of a serious nature on a boy despite the resistence of both J and his parents. The court granted permission for the treatment to go ahead as being in the boy's best interests. 

European Union – State aids. The Court of Justice of the European Union allowed the appeal by the European Commission by which the Commission sought to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Andersen v Commission: T‑92/11, by which the General Court had annulled in part Commission Decision 2011/3/EU (concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner). However, the respective cross-appeals by Danske Statsbaner SV and Denmark which also sought to have the judgment under appeal set aside were dismissed. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 82 EC, deciding, among other things, that art 82 EC should be interpreted as meaning that, in order to fall within the scope of that article, the anti-competitive effect of a rebate scheme operated by a dominant undertaking had to be probable, there being no need to show that it was of a serious or appreciable nature. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed an appeal by the claimant against a decision of a master exercised under CPR 3.1(2)(f) ordering the stay of execution of an order registering seven foreign judgments as High Court judgments. The court held that it could not be said that once a judgment became liable to execution, an application for stay could only be made outside CPR 3.1, or that CPR 3.1 was ousted by one or other of CPR 83.7 or CPR 40.8A. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The central issue was whether a judge had been right to have granted summary judgment striking down the first and third appellants' negligence claims against their solicitors, on the grounds that they had been issued more than three years after they had acquired the knowledge required for bringing an action for damages in respect of the relevant damage, within the meaning of s 14A(5) and (6) of the Limitation Act 1980. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in the circumstances, allowed the appellants' appeal and set aside the orders for summary judgment. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his Extradition to Poland to face trial for five offences of fraud committed between May and July 2002. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the appellant's extradition was not barred by the passage of time, his rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights or the independent statutory proportionality bar, under s 21A of the Extradition Act 2003. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The second defendant applied to set aside an order requiring him to attend court to be examined, pursuant to CPR 71, in his capacity as an officer of the first defendant company, a judgment debtor of the claimant Deutsche Bank AG, and for him to produce certain documents. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that there was nothing in the authorities which justified the proposition that an order under CPR 71 could only be made on a non-resident foreigner if there were exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, there were exceptional circumstances and strong reasons for exercising the court's jurisdiction under CPR 71 where there had been significant asset transfers from the company and where it had failed to give proper disclosure regarding its assets. 

Criminal evidence – Evidence of bad character. Three appeals against conviction, challenging decisions of the Court of Appeal of Bermuda, were heard together, as they raised similar questions concerning the admissibility and proper ambit of evidence as to the existence and practices of gangs, and the appellants' connections with them. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appellants' appeals, gave extensive guidance on the admissibility of gang evidence, in particular, when given by police officers.