Latest Cases

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The Family Division dismissed the applicant mother's application for summary return to France of her son, T, whom the respondent father had removed from the jurisdiction and taken to England. It held that, in the circumstances, and given T's objections, it would be inappropriate to return T to France under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980. 

Adoption – Application. The Family Division dismissed an application made by RY to adopt SL, who had experienced hypoxic-ischaemic enceophalopathy at birth and suffered from a number of conditions resulting from it. It held that RY had demonstrated a pattern of failure to work with medical professionals and to accept advice, and that the risk of harm she presented to SL was real and serious. 

Company – Administration. The Companies Court, on an application for specific disclosure, made by the administrators of companies against the applicants (the owner of the companies and one of the companies) and the applicants' cross-application for disclosure, ruled that it was a classic type of case where the court could avoid the cost and expense of disclosure and cross-examination by adopting the alternative course of drawing inferences which were appropriate from any failure on the part of any party to be full and frank with the court, instead of ordering specific disclosure. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court held that, when s 54(1) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 provided that, in certain circumstances, the court could make a parental order on the application of 'two people', it was not open to the court to make such an order on the application of one person. Section 54(1) could not be 'read down' in accordance with s 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to enable that to be done. 

European Union – State aid. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 14 of Council Regulation (EC) 659/1999 and arts 11 and 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) 794/2004 did not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the present proceedings, which, by means of a reference to Regulation 794/2004, provided for the application of compound interest to the recovery of state aid, even though the decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery had been adopted and notified to the member state concerned before that Regulation had entered into force. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. A local authority applied for a care order in respect of a child in circumstances where the parents' first child had died. While the death had been classified as sudden infant death syndrome, concerns had been raised regarding possible abuse. The Family Court, following a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the authority's application as the threshold test under s 31 of the Children Act 1989 had not been passed on the balance of probabilities and there was no likelihood that the new child would suffer significant harm in the parents' care. 

European Union – Taxation. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, holding that art 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union was to be interpreted as preluding rules of a member state that governed a tax integration regime under which a tax-integrated parent company was entitled to neutralisation regarding the add-back of a proportion of costs and expenses, fixed at 5% of the net amount of the dividends received by it from tax-integrated resident companies, when such neutralisation was refused to it under those rules regarding the dividends distributed to it from subsidiaries located in another member state, which, had they been resident, would have been eligible in practice if they so had elected. 

Freedom of information – Exempt information. The Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO) had, during the course of a raid, collected a list of names of journalists who had obtained information through an investigator. The respondent had sought disclosure of those names under a Freedom of Information request. The ICO refused the request, and that was upheld by the Information Commissioner. The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) determined that some of the names should be disclosed. The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) upheld the FTT's decision, as there had been no error of law in its decision that the information in issue was not 'sensitive personal data' within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 and that its disclosure was for a legitimate purpose, rather than an unwarranted intrusion into the journalists' privacy rights. 

Child – Care. The Family Court allowed an application by the local authority to withdraw its application for a care order in the case of L, a baby who was suspected of having suffered injuries at the hands of someone in a pool of suspects that included L's parents. The court held that, in the circumstances, leave to withdraw was the only proper and proportionate order available. 

European Union – Community aid. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that sub-para 4 of art 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 2988/95 was to be interpreted as meaning that the limitation which it laid down was applicable not only to proceedings concerning irregularities which led to the imposition of administrative penalties within the meaning of art 5 of that Regulation but also to proceedings which led to the adoption of administrative measures within the meaning of art 4.