Latest Cases

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Order for disclosure. The claimant firm brought an action seeking payment for outstanding invoices in relation to professional services provided to the defendant in relation to a project to develop a property in Lancashire. The defendant counterclaimed, alleging professional negligence. Shortly before the trial, the claimant applied for specific disclosure and permission to rely upon the expert evidence of a forensic accountant. The Chancery Division dismissed the application where the matter in respect of which specific disclosure and expert evidence was sought, was not a key issue in the context of the case, and considering the lateness of the application. 

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. 

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. 

Adoption – Consent. The mother's daughter, CB, was removed from her care and accommodated pursuant to s 20 of the Children Act 1989. She was placed with prospective adopters. The mother sought permission to, among other things, oppose the adoption. The Family Division dismissed the mother's applications and held that the only outcome that could provide sufficient stability and security was adoption. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of imprisonment for two years and six months for theft, criminal damage and burglary, committed in 2002 and 2003. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judicial authority was not in breach of the specialty provisions. Further, the appellant had been responsible for much of the delay and his extradition would not have exceptionally serious consequences for his family which outweighed the public interest in extradition. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The President of the Court of Protection had given two judgments in an attempt to streamline processes in that court in circumstances where deprivation of liberty applications were made. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the President had not had jurisdiction to engage in the procedure that he had and that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the two appeals that had been brought. If it had had jurisdiction, it would have held that the President's decision that a person who might be deprived of his liberty did not always have to be joined as a party to the proceedings had been incorrect. 

Vexatious proceedings – Civil proceedings order. The proceedings concerned the rights to certain performances by Jimi Hendrix. The claimant, M, had made a number of applications and claims that had been found to be without merit. The Chancery Division struck out his current claims and made an extended civil restraint order against M. 

Trust and trustee – Trustee. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of trust deeds in respect of family land, the sons would not at any stage acquire an absolute interest in any share which passed to them on the death of the survivor of their parents. Further, the court had the power to give to retrospectively approve a transaction, which would otherwise be a breach of the self‑dealing rule, which prevented trustees from purchasing trust property. 

Judicial review – Application for judicial review. The appellant bookmaker had been licensed by the Mauritian Gambling Regulatory Authority to take bets on football matches being played overseas. Its licence was suspended and then revoked. No reasons were given for the revocation. The appellant applied for leave to bring judicial review proceedings, but its application was dismissed by reason of its failure to make full and frank disclosure of facts by reason of misleading statements. The Privy Council allowed the appellant's appeal as the Supreme Court of Mauritius had failed to consider the merits of the application before dismissing it, and where there were sufficiently strong grounds that justified a grant of permission in respect of two of the appellant's assertions. 

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.