Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. The respondent applied for reconsideration of two orders that, first, discharged him as his daughter's deputy for property and affairs and, secondly, appointed a panel deputy to act in his place. The Court of Protection, in setting aside the orders and reinstating the respondent as his daughter's deputy for property and affairs, held that the respondent had not had behaved, or proposed to behave, in a way that contravened the authority conferred on him by the court, or was not in his daughter's best interests. 

Warranty – Breach. The Chancery Division dismissed both the claimants' claim and the defendants' counterclaim, where the first defendant, S, and the first claimant, M, had entered business together but had fallen out over the work done by S. The court held that S had not acted in breach of warranty, and that the claimants were not responsible for the torts alleged in the counterclaim. 

Pension – Equal treatment in employment and occupation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed two appeals against decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, holding, in respect of the first appeal, among other things, that, at the time of the first appellant's service as a part-time recorder before the date for the transposition of Council Directive (EC) 97/81 into domestic law, he had acquired no pension rights and could not do so retroactively. As to the second appeal, it held, among other things, that para 18 of Sch 9 to the Equality Act 2010 was not incompatible with Council Directive (EC) 2000/78. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The case concerned proceedings, under the court's inherent jurisdiction and under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, in respect of two children. A female genital mutilation protection order had been made in the standard terms and the children had been made wards of court. The mother was directed to take all reasonable steps to arrange for the children's return from Sudan to the United Kingdom. By the time of the present hearing, the mother accepted that she had not complied with the order. The Family Division made an order, which was to include provisions identified by the parties concerning arrangements to facilitate the children's return. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division held that the court would set aside the order of a master made pursuant to CPR r 6.15(2) that service of a petition and associated documents by first class post at the association address was good service and that there were deemed to have been served by the nominated date. 

European Union – Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that, on the proper construction of art 25(6) of Council Directive (EC) 95/46, Commission Decision (EC) 2000/520, which found that the United States ensured an adequate level of data protection, was invalid. 

European Union – Police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. The Court of justice of the European Union refused to annul Council Implementing Decision(EU) 2014/26 on the basis that the council had not committed any breach of the treaties or any essential procedural requirements. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 63 TFEU. The references had been made in proceedings between Mr Miljoen, X and Société Générale SA and the Netherlands State Secretary for Finance, concerning withholding tax levied by that authority on Netherlands-sourced dividends distributed to the applicants in the main proceedings. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court considered the placement of Ro, who was 14 years old and displayed extremely difficult and demanding behaviour. It held that the local authority's care plan, which involved Ro remaining at the residential unit where she currently stayed, was the only plan that could meet her welfare interests and, therefore, would be approved. 

European Union – EU Institutions. In proceedings concerning the applicant's removal from the electoral roll following his conviction, the Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling that member states were not precluded from excluding from those entitled to vote in elections to the European Parliament persons who had been convicted of a serious crime and whose convictions had become final before 1 March 1994.