Latest Cases

Will – Testator. The Chancery Division held that, in a dispute concerning the validity of the testatrix's second will, the second will had been made validly, and that the testatrix had both had capacity and had known and approved the contents of the will when she had signed it. The claimant's claim for the court to decree probate over the will was allowed, and the first defendant's caveat on the will was vacated. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The proceedings concerned an application by a wife for a mandatory interlocutory injunction to require a husband to pay £8.49m plus interest and fees required to complete the purchase of a property. The husband resisted the application on the basis that the wife's application was an attempt by her to enforce one element of a financial remedy agreement made in the course of financial remedy proceedings. The Family Division held that the element was a separate and distinct element and was therefore enforceable. 

Housing – Homeless person. The claimant challenged the defendant local housing authority's housing allocation scheme on the basis that it unlawfully suspended an applicant's ability to bid for social housing until 12 months had elapsed following acceptance as an unintentionally homeless eligible person in priority need. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the differentiation permitted by the Housing Act 1996 was restricted to adjusting the relative priority of sub-groups by reference to features which afforded them some opportunity to be allocated social housing, however remote that possibility might be. The authority's scheme afforded the claimant no preference. 

Vicarious liability – Non-employment relationship. In a historic sexual abuse claim by the claimant against various aspects and persons of the Jehovah's Witness organisation, the Queen's Bench Division held that the organisation of Jehovah's Witness was vicariously liable for the acts of various members and that s 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 would be used to allow the claimant to bring her claim. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Philippines national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing her discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom to pursue a compensation claim against a former employer. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had applied the correct test in determining that the claimant had not been trafficked within the UK and she had been entitled to the view that the claimant had not substantiated her claim. Alternatively, no substantial reason had been provided why the claimant was required to stay in the UK to pursue her civil claim. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda (Infocit) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV and Infocit regarding the application by the latter company for registration of the word sign 'DINKOOL' as a Community trade mark. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The applicants applied for a parental order in relation to a child, A, who had been born in South Africa following a surrogacy arrangement. The Family Division, in making a parental order, held that the criteria in s 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 had been met. Further, it was clearly in A's lifelong interests that there was consistency as to her legal status in relation to those who cared for her across the relevant jurisdictions where she was likely to live, and that could only be achieved in the present jurisdiction by the court making the order sought. 

Employment – Discrimination. The claimant employees brought a test claim before the employment tribunal, contending that members of the black and minority ethnic group and those over the age of 35 suffered indirect discrimination in that they were more likely to fail an assessment leading to eligibility for promotion. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the employer's appeal, held that the claimants had to prove the nature of the group disadvantage for the purposes of surmounting the hurdle in s 19(2)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 and that each claimant had to also prove that he had suffered the same disadvantage for the purposes of surmounting the hurdle in s 19(2)(c) of the Act. 

Criminal evidence – Admissibility of evidence – Parliamentary privilege. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal by an appellant who was charged with perjury and who objected to the admissibility at his trial of evidence of the asking of certain questions of him by the accused in another, earlier trial on a charge of perjury, an objection which the judge repelled, the court held that for the Crown to lead evidence of a passage in the transcript, where reference was made to the appellant having given evidence before a Parliamentary select committee, would be to offend against the privilege of Parliament or, to put it differently, would lead the High Court of Justiciary to intrude upon an area where it had no jurisdiction. 

Practice – Order. The defendants applied to set aside a judgment made against them for failure to comply with an unless order in the disclosure of documents. The Commercial Court held that the judgment would be set aside, where it was not persuaded that it should reject as untruthful the defendants' accounts of their problems in listing certain documents that needed to be disclosed.