Latest Cases

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 should be interpreted as meaning that legal proceedings for compensation for disturbance of ownership and property rights, contractual performance and damages, brought by private persons who were holders of government bonds against the issuing state, fell within the scope of that regulation in so far as it did not appear that they were manifestly outside the concept of civil or commercial matters. 

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. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The defendant was one of fifty-two defendants sentenced by the same judge for their involvement in a violent episode of public disorder in Birmingham City Centre in July 2013 arising from a demonstration by the English Defence League and a counter-demonstration by United Against Fascism. Having pleaded guilty to violent disorder, he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that there had been sufficient material to infer that, at least in part, the defendant's actions had been religiously or racially motivated but that the judge's starting point of three years' imprisonment had been too high. Consequently, the sentence was reduced to one of 16 months' imprisonment. 

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. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant, a six year old boy, suffered serious injuries following an accident in a swimming pool in which he was found at the bottom of the pool but later resuscitated. The Queen's Bench Division held that the lifeguards on duty had failed to identify the claimant as a child at risk had they done so they would have registered his disappearance and immediately searched to find him and remove him from the water. There was a causal link between that breach of duty and the injuries the claimant had sustained and he was entitled to judgment accordingly. 

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division previously ordered the claimant's copyright infringement claim to be struck out unless he filed proper particulars and claimed damages less than £30,000. The defendants invited the court to confirm their understanding that the claimant had not complied with the unless order and so the action stood automatically struck out. The Chancery Division held that the claimant's claim remained for £2,560,000 calculated on a grossly inflated basis in breach of the unless order. It further refused relief from sanctions. 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of three years' imprisonment. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the first offence had contained sufficient particulars to satisfy the requirements of dual criminality, as it showed the offence of handling stolen goods. Further, the judge had come to the right conclusion as to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, namely, that extradition would be a proportionate interference with his art 8 rights. 

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. 

Divorce – Ancillary relief. The appellant wife appealed against the judge's interpretation of an order made in contested financial remedy proceedings which involved complex issues relating to tax. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had fallen into error in declining to attempt an apportionment exercise. Only by conducting such an exercise could the court hope to ensure that the wife had not been rendered partially responsible for the consequences of her former husband's wholesale tax evasion.