Latest Cases

Adoption – Order. The applicants applied to adopt a child, C. During the course of the pregnancy and around the time of C's birth, they paid sums of money to the parents, various sums of which were subsequently repaid. The Family Division held that it was in C's welfare best interests that he be made the subject of an adoption order in favour of the applicants. There had been no attempt to hide the arrangement from the authorities because the arrangement, although contravening s 92 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, had been a genuine and sincere arrangement, and not in any sense a commercial arrangement which was contrary to the interests of C. 

Practice – Costs. The issue in the proceedings was whether a judge, who had not made the relevant costs orders, could nevertheless summarily assess the costs which were the subject matter of those orders. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In proceedings concerning a three year old child who was believed to be in hiding with his mother, the Family Court sought to make clear the legal position in relation to the mother. 

Divorce – Financial provision. Following a divorce, the Family Division made rulings as to the wife's claim for financial remedies. It held that, among other things, the husband was to pay the wife a lump sum of £1,200,000, with credit for the value of any shares in a company which he had transferred to her. He was also to pay or cause to be paid joint lives periodical payments to the wife in the sum of £320,000 per annum. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd (Best-Lock), established in the United Kingdom, against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning invalidity proceedings between Best-Lock and Lego Juris A/S in relation to the successful registration by the latter company of a three-dimensional trade mark depicting a toy figure. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of certain provisions of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax). The request had been made in proceedings between Lisboagás GDL — Sociedade Distribuidora de Gás Natural de Lisboa SA (Lisboagás) and the respondent Portuguese fiscal and customs authority concerning self-assessments for VAT by Lisboagas which the respondent had refused to accept. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The judge awarded the claimant damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of the defendant's negligence in the operation of its Hyper Jump. The defendant appealed against her finding of liability and quantum. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to reach the conclusions she had on the evidence before her. It would not be appropriate to interfere with her factual findings as to liability or her assessment of quantum. 

Limitation of Action – Land. The claimant was the freehold owner of a farm. In 1991, the defendant authority acquired a compulsory purchase order regarding some of his land. The claimant contended that he had not been properly compensated. He sought an order that the authority should refer the matter to the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal (the Tribunal) for assessment and an injunction restraining the authority from using the land as a road. The Chancery Division considered two preliminary issues. It held that s 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 applied to the present application, but that it would be unconscionable for the authority to take a limitation defence. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. B was a pertinacious litigant. He was also the moving spirit behind two limited liability companies that provided legal advice and legal services. B was also a McKenzie friend. B applied to the court to set aside two orders made against him, one being a civil restraint order and the other prohibiting him from issuing, acting in or conducting any claim or any application or any appeal in any proceedings in any court; and from acting or holding himself out to act as a McKenzie friend in the present or any other proceedings in any court. The Family Division held that the first order would be set aside and the second order would be extended indefinitely. 

Minor – Custody. D had been born to the mother in Germany. D's father was a British citizen who lived with his wife in England. D subsequently travelled to England, where he had lived ever since. The mother sought either a return order or a transfer request for proceedings to be resolved in Germany. The Family Division held that, on the evidence, the arrangement between the parties had been for D to be brought up in England by his father and his wife. D had not been, as his mother suggested, habitually resident in Germany and, therefore, art 3 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 was not engaged.