Latest Cases

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. 

Family proceedings – Costs. Following the divorce and financial remedies hearing between the husband, wife and the second respondent L, the wife's half sister, the matter came before the court to determine costs. The Family Division held that taking all relevant factors into account, W and L should pay 25% of H's costs, on a standard basis, to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. A child had been made the subject of non-molestation injunctions, which extended to her mother, while she was a ward of court. As she approached her eighteenth birthday, the mother applied to court for an extension of the injunction to extend indefinitely beyond the conclusion of the wardship proceedings. The Family Division, in allowing the application, held that it had jurisdiction to make such an order, although the mother and child lived in Australia, as did the person the order was directed towards. Such an order could be extended beyond the conclusion of the wardship and the court had inherent jurisdiction to make such an order, either under its wardship jurisdiction or under its inherent jurisdiction to protect vulnerable adults. 

Immigration – Refugee. The claimant Chechens issued judicial review proceedings, resisting their return to Sweden, under Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003, on the ground that there was a real risk that they would be refouled to Russia. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that para 3(2) of Sch 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Act 2004, providing an irrebuttable legal presumption that Sweden would not refoul returned asylum seekers in breach of its international obligations did not apply to any claim founded in EU law. Further, the Secretary of State had correctly concluded that the Swedish authorities would not fail to abide by their legal obligations. 

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. 

Pleading – Striking out. In the course of proceedings, the master ruled that elements of the claimant's claim would be dismissed. The claimant sought to re-amend its proceedings, and to introduce new documentary evidence. The Chancery Division held that, while the claimant's submissions concerning issue estoppel were correct, there should be finality. The application was an abuse of process, and would be dismissed. 

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. 

Medicine – Human fertilisation and embryology. The defendant Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority refused to permit the export of the claimants' deceased daughter's eggs to a treatment centre in New York to be fertilised and implanted in the mother. The claimants sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the defendant's decision, that the deceased's wishes had not been sufficiently clear and informed, had been rational and it had not failed to realise or consider the full extent of its discretionary powers. Further, the claimants had had no right to use the eggs, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Adoption – Application. The judge had had to decide whether to place two young children with their paternal aunt in Belgium or to allow them to remain with their long term foster carer who had applied to adopt them. The judge had ordered that the children be sent to their aunt. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the foster carer's appeal. The judge had erred in eliding the two welfare check-lists in the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and failed to give any regard to the effect on the children of removing them from the care of their primary attachment figure, when it was common ground that that was a strong and entirely positive relationship, and, likewise, failed to attribute any value, from the children's perspective, to the continuation of that relationship. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The defendants robbed the victim of his phone and jacket and forced him to withdraw £210 from a cash machine, during the course of a robbery in which the victim was pushed to the ground and struck with a dog chain. The defendants pleaded guilty and were sentenced to 16 months and two years' detention respectively. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division gave the Attorney General leave to refer the sentences as being unduly lenient and substituted sentences of 32 months and three years' detention.