Latest Cases

Housing – Homeless person. The appellants had been found by the respective local authorities to have been intentionally homeless and possession orders were obtained to reclaim the temporary accommodation that the appellants were housed in. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that there had been nothing to indicate there was any separate or different interest on the part of the children or any identifiable need other than, like their mothers, for accommodation and there had been no positive obligation on the authorities to have conducted assessments of the needs of the children pursuant to s 11 of the Children Act 2004. 

Misrepresentation – Fraudulent misrepresentation. The Chancery Division held, in dismissing the claimant company's claim regarding a failed agreement to jointly purchase property, that there had been no fraud on the part of the defendants, either deriving from a side letter, or otherwise. 

Trust and trustee – Constructive trust. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant's claim, in a dispute over the purported exchange of a property in Leeds with one in Tehran. The court held that the claimant had made out his case for a constructive trust and/or proprietary estoppel, and the appropriate relief was to put the parties in the position that they would have been if the contract had been concluded. 

European Union – European arrest warrant (EAW). The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 15 and 17 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (on the European arrest warrant (EAW) and the surrender procedures between member states), as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA. The request had been made in the context of the execution, in Ireland, of a EAW issued by the magistrates' courts in Dungannon (United Kingdom) in respect of Mr Lanigan. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to the United States of America to face trial for 21 charges concerning the export of goods, including those capable of use in the development of chemical and biological weapons, from the US to Syria. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the dual criminality requirement had been met and extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with the appellant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Child – Protection. The issue before the Administrative Court was whether it was lawful for the defendant local authority to have a policy of retaining child protection records for a period of 35 years after a case had been closed. The court held that the policy was in accordance with the law, had been carefully considered, adapted to the purposes for which it was required, and was applied proportionately and flexibly. 

Negligence – Professional person. There were before the court claims by a number of claimants who had bought properties off plan under a contract drawn up by the defendant solicitors. The properties failed to be completed and the claimants brought claims against the defendants. The Queen's Bench Division held that there had been breaches of duty by the solicitors but the question of causation in individual cases were not be addressed in the present proceedings. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The issue for determination was whether the judge had been permitted to make an order for the husband's payment of interim maintenance to the wife into an account in Russia when he was subject to sanctions imposed by Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the husband's appeal, held that the order was lawful, since it contained no provisions dealing with funds or economic resources within the scope of the Regulation without the competent authority's licence. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding that, arts 3 and 5 of Directive (EC) 94/11 should be interpreted as precluding legislation of a member state, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, prohibiting, inter alia, the marketing of leather components of footwear coming from other member states, or coming from non-member countries and already marketed in another member state or in the member state concerned, when those products did not bear a label indicating their country of origin. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division granted an injunction to the claimant local authority to restrain the defendant from pursuing a course of conduct amounting to harassment. In so doing the court was sure that the defendant would fail to establish one of the statutory defences, under by s 1(3)(a) and (c) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as he could not satisfy the rationality test in making out his avowed purpose of preventing and detecting crime.