Latest Cases

Contempt of court – Committal. The claimant applied for: (i) summary judgment and for costs; and (ii) committal of the first defendant for contempt of court. The Queen's Bench Division gave summary judgment for the claimant in relation to the admitted issues and declined to give summary judgment on two disputed matters. Having held that it was appropriate to address the question of contempt at the time of the present proceedings and that, in the circumstances, there was no requirement upon the claimant to obtain leave before bringing the committal proceedings, a fine of £1,000 was imposed on the first defendant. 

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. 

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary proceedings. The claimant, who suffered from 'locked in' syndrome, sought judicial review of the defendant General Medical Council's (the GMC) guidance on assisted suicide. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the guidance did not infringe arts 8 or 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular, as a blanket ban on assisted suicide did not infringe and the guidance was not irrational. Further, the GMC's guidance was not obliged to be in line with that the Director of Public Prosecutions. 

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. 

Landlord and tenant – Action for possession. Following an appeal and many other applications by the tenant against his eviction for non-payment of rent, the Queen's Bench Division dismissed all application as being without merit. There had been no defence to the possession claim in circumstances where the defendant had been notified by the landlord of the change in ownership under s 3 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. 

Immigration – Asylum. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to accept his further representations as a fresh claim for asylum. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that, although there had been no express reference to the relevant policy, it was sufficiently clear that the claimant's period of residence in the United Kingdom had been considered. Further, the claimant's time in the UK had been considered in the context of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Employment Appeal Tribunal – Discrimination. The employee claimed to have been the victim of racial discrimination, and had subsequently been dismissed by reason of long health related absence. An employment tribunal found that she had suffered discrimination on the grounds of race, and had been unfairly dismissed, but that the two issues were not related. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT), dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the claim did not break the high threshold of a perversity challenge. The EAT further dismissed an appeal for compensation due to ill health caused by discrimination, and appeals as to the levels of compensation awarded for injury to feelings and unfair dismissal. 

Minor – Abduction. A judge had ordered the return of a child, against her wishes, to Lithuania, finding that art 13b of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 did not, in the circumstances, operate to prevent such return. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the mother's appeal. She had been entitled to treat the CAFCASS officer's evidence with caution and it had been correct for her to have considered the influence exerted by the mother and half-siblings on the child's views where that had not led to her having left those views completely out of account. Finally, it had been for the mother to have substantiated the exception under art 13b and she had failed to do so. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 (on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community) should be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in order to penalise a failure to comply with the obligation to declare laid down in art 3 of that regulation, imposed payment of an administrative fine, the amount of which corresponded to 60% of the amount of undeclared cash, where that sum was more than €50,000. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Family Division allowed an application by the Czech Republic seeking a transfer request in respect of care proceedings initiated regarding three children from the Czech Republic who had been living in the United Kingdom since 2009 in circumstances where the grounds for making such a request were made out.