Latest Cases

Firearms – Possession. The defendant had pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited weapon, contrary to s 5(1)(af) of the Firearms Act 1968, in circumstances where he contended that he had legitimately acquired the weapon prior to the coming into force of that provision. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in quashing the conviction, held that, on the true construction of s 39(4) of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which introduced s 5(1)(af) into the 1968 Act, all that had been required was the obtaining of a firearm certificate and that failure to obtain such a certificate was an offence under s 1 of the 1968 Act and not s 5. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that having regard to sch 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and r 3A Court of Protection Rules 2007, SI No 1744/07, what was necessary to secure the rights of a patient effectively transferred from the Irish health care system to the United Kingdom system, was to seek clarification from the Irish Court into whether the patient needed to be made a party to the proceedings. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The claimant's claim for a payment under the law of restitution of £80,000 and damages for false imprisonment in relation to a period of two days which he had spent in prison for failing to pay the sum due under a confiscation order had been struck out. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that, in the circumstances, the claimant had no case in restitution and the claim in false imprisonment also failed. Accordingly, the judge had been right that the claimant's claims should be struck out. 

Practice – Conflict of laws. A company applied to stay two actions brought in England by its shareholder, seeking relief under ss 996 and 125 of the Companies Act 2006. The company relied on its pending claim against the defendant before the court in Malaysia. The Chancery Division dismissed the application for a stay, ruling that both actions were proceedings which fell within art 24 of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 1215/ 2012, which created an exclusive jurisdiction in favour of England for two categories of proceedings. 

Coroner – Inquest. The claimant applied to quash the inquest into her son's death in a Dubai prison in which the medical cause of death was described as 'unascertained'. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that there had been an insufficiency of inquiry, as the coroner had failed to seek the attendance, whether in person or by video link, of relevant witnesses from Dubai. Accordingly, it was necessary and desirable in the interests of justice that another investigation and inquest should be held. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by AGC Glass Europe SA and other companies for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 5719 final on the rejection of a request for confidential treatment submitted by those companies under art 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU (on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings). 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Jamaican national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing to revoke a deportation order and to certify that decision under s 96 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the fact that the claimant could rely on the passage of time, which he had not been able to do so when challenging the deportation order, clearly amounted to a new matter and that the decision could not be certified. 

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant, who had been sole attorney for her father under a Lasting Power of Attorney, was charged with fraud in respect of dealings with her father's money. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, considered an application by the prosecution under s 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, in circumstances where the proceedings had been stayed on that count where the judge had held that it would be an abuse of process to continue in the absence of further particulars. The court held that the indictment had been sufficient and ordered the proceedings to resume. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court held that the applicant Cumbria County Council had not proved its case that injuries suffered by a one-year-old child had been inflicted deliberately. 

Misrepresentation – Damages. The claimant claimed misrepresentation and rescission in respect of the purchase of a car from the defendant. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against the judge's finding that the claimant was entitled to rescind the contract and recover the purchase price. In the circumstances, the claimant was entitled to rescind the contract. If it was right that rescission should (still) be the normal remedy for misrepresentation, unless restitution was truly impossible, the claimant should be able to recover the purchase price. Lapse of time on its own could not be a bar to rescission in the present case.