Latest Cases

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. The Chancery Division ruled that Beatles memorabilia, among other things, had not been gifted to a bankrupt's wife and daughter, but belonged to him at the date of his bankruptcy and, accordingly, vested in the trustee in bankruptcy. 

Constitutional law – Foreign sovereign state. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant Sudanese human rights lawyer's judicial review proceedings, held that the defendant Secretary of State had properly carried out assessments in relation to the provision of assistance and training offered to the Sudanese armed forces under the Overseas Security and Justice Assistance Human Rights Guidance. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division ruled in proceedings concerning the reporting of ancillary proceedings in respect of Nicole Appleton and Liam Gallagher that, where their financial information had been compulsorily extracted, it was subject to an implied undertaking that it would not be published and reporting restrictions would continue in that respect. The order imposing reporting restrictions was only varied so as to allow the naming of other parties in the case, except the children. 

Criminal law – Sexual offences. The defendants appealed against their convictions for kidnapping, sexual assault, theft and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and the sentences of seven and eight years' imprisonment imposed. The Court Martial Appeal Court, in dismissing the appeals, held that the prosecution's failure to record and retain records had not rendered the convictions unsafe, and none of the defendants' challenges had had any material impact on the safety of the convictions. Further, the sentences had not offended the totality principle. 

Child – Care. Following a fact-finding hearing, the Family Division ruled that a two-year-old child, Y, had suffered an impact to his head which had caused the injuries found in his eyes and brain. On the balance of probabilities, the mother's boyfriend was responsible for Y's head injury by an action or actions that could not be identified. There was no evidence that the impact had been deliberately inflicted and it was more likely that it had been a reckless and foolish action taken by a young man who had no experience as a parent, primary or main carer of a child. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that the claim by the claimant NOCN (formerly National Open College Network) for trade mark infringement failed, save in one respect. One particular mark stood to be revoked. The claim for passing off succeeded, but only in relation to the defendant's logo. 

Solicitor – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant Solicitors Regulation Authority challenged the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal's (the tribunal) conclusions and the fine of £15,000 imposed on the first and second respondents. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the evidence and the tribunal's primary findings of fact compelled a conclusion that there had been a want of integrity, a failure to act with independence, and that the respondents had acted so as to diminish the trust the public would place in them and the provision of legal services. 

Child – Care. The present fact-finding proceedings concerned what had happened to granddaughters of GM and GF when they were children, placed by the local authority in their care. The findings sought by the authority concerned complaints of abuse. The Family Court found that the authority's case had been proved on the balance of probabilities and the findings sought were made. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. In resolving test cases, the Court of Protection held that a patient did not have to be a party to all applications for welfare orders sought to authorise, and which when made would authorise, a deprivation of their liberty caused by the implementation of the care package on which the welfare order was based. 

Criminal evidence – Character of accused. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against a conviction for producing cannabis where it had been rendered unsafe because, following the admission of bad character evidence, the judge had failed to give the jury a warning as to the steps needed to be followed when evaluating that material.