Latest Cases

Child – Care. A baby, M, died whilst in the care of his mother and her partner, A. After his death, M was found to have sustained bruises and a fractured right tibia. The mother subsequently gave birth to another child and, in view of the circumstances of M's death, the local authority began care proceedings. In the present fact-finding proceedings, the authority did not seek to argue that either the mother or A were responsible for M's death. Rather, the focus was on the causes of the fracture and bruises, and whether M was neglected by his mother and A. The Family Division, on the evidence, made some, but not all, of the findings sought by the authority. 

Negligence – Fire. The claimant's house was significantly damaged by fire and she brought proceedings against the defendant. The judge, in dismissing the claim, found that the fire had been caused by an escape from a fire at the defendant's property, but that he had not been negligent. The claimant appealed and the defendant cross-appealed on causation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal and allowing the cross-appeal, held that the process of reasoning which had led the judge to conclude that the claimant had succeeded on causation was fatally flawed. 

Minor – Abduction. A was three years and nine months old, and had been living in the United Kingdom with her mother since May 2014. A was born in Hungary and her mother was Hungarian. In December 2013 the mother and A returned to Hungary. The father brought proceedings for A's summary return to Italy pursuant to the provisions of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, which drafted into UK law the provisions of the Hague Convention and the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Family Division held that A was habitually resident in Hungry at the time of her removal to the UK and that the father's application had to be dismissed. 

Will – Foreign will. The proceedings related to a will made by the deceased, B, in favour of D. B's niece, A, brought proceedings. The courts below found that there had been undue influence on the part of D. D appealed. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appeal, held that, among other things, issues of unjust enrichment in Saint Lucia had to be determined under English law. The court below had not erred. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The mother of a child applied to the court for permission to remove R from the UK to Angola to live there permanently. The father opposed that application, and applied for a child arrangements order to define the time R spent with him in England. The Family Division allowed the mother's application as it was in R's best interests to do so. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following the settlement of a claim, the judge conducted a detailed assessment of costs and decided, inter alia, two preliminary issues relating to the conditional fee agreement (CFA) which the claimant's litigation friend had entered into with his solicitors. The MIB appealed against the judge's order. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the appeal in part, ruled as to, inter alia, the assessment of the success fee and an issue concerning the 'back-dating' of the CFA. 

European Union – Taxation. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 6(3) TEU, arts 34, 36, 52(1), 56 and 61 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and arts 1, 8 and 9 of Directive (EC) 98/34. The request had been made in proceedings brought by Berlington Hungary Tanácsadó és Szolgáltató kft and other companies against Hungary concerning an action seeking compensation brought by those companies for the damage that they had allegedly suffered as a result of the application of national legislation concerning the operation of slot machines contrary to European Union law. 

Immigration – Appeal. Following a sentence of imprisonment of eight years, the appellant was made the subject of a deportation notice. The appellant relied on the fact that his wife and daughter were United Kingdom citizens. His appeal was dismissed by both the First-tier and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chambers). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed his appeal. There was no doubt that, if the appellant's wife was herself compelled to leave, the child would be compelled to go with her, but there was no compulsion on the wife and, in those circumstances, the child could not be said to be compelled either. 

Limitation of action – Indemnity. The issue for determination was whether s 1(4) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 precluded the CPR Pt 20 defendant (Delta) from arguing that the main claim had been time-barred. The Chancery Division held that a 'collateral defence' was based on factual assertions which were not to be assumed against the defendant in accordance with s 1(4) of the Act and was properly described as one where the burden of establishing the facts determining that issue would be on the defendant in the main action. On that basis, s 1(4) of the Act precluded Delta from arguing that the main claim had been time-barred. 

Practice – Injunction. In the course of proceedings concerning a claim alleging deceit and misrepresentation, among other things, a freezing order had been granted, without notice, against the defendant company, which was alleged to have deceitfully promoted a scheme, which the claimants had invested in. The defendant applied to discharge the injunction or for summary judgment on the claim. The Chancery Division held that there were grounds for discharging the freezing order where there had been material non-disclosure and misrepresentations at the without notice hearing. However, it granted the claimants an opportunity to adduce a further amended pleading and, accordingly, declined to grant summary judgment.