Latest Cases

Company – Administration order. The Companies Court, in dismissing an application by joint administrators, held that, as a result of art 4 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No 5 and Saving Provisions) Order 2013, conditional fee arrangements were unavailable to the administrators who had been appointed under the special administration regime. 

Housing – Homeless person. The appellant had applied to the respondent local authority for homeless assistance under the Housing Act 1996. The authority accepted that he met all of the criteria other than a connection with the local area, as he had more of a connection with Eastbourne and referred the application accordingly. Eastbourne accepted that it had a housing duty towards him, but the appellant never applied to that authority for assistance. The respondent authority rejected the appellant's applications as the appellant was not homeless as accommodation was available to him in Eastbourne if he applied for it. The appellant's appeals were refused. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the fact that an applicant might be offered accommodation by another authority which might satisfy s 175(3) of the Act did not entitle the decision maker, per se, to find that an applicant was not homeless and that, accordingly, the qualifications for homelessness contained in s 175(1) were not satisfied. The court found that the judge below had erred but, remaking the decision for itself, held that the appellant had been homeless but that, in the circumstances, the authority had no longer owed any housing duty to him. 

Practice – Parties. The Queen's Bench Division considered whether it was permissible to change the name of a party after default judgment had been obtained and the procedure to be adopted when the party to be joined disputed the factual basis on which that party was being joined. The court held that the master had had jurisdiction to join the defendant and, in the circumstances, had been right to make the order that he had. 

Copyright – Ownership. A dispute arose as to the division of publishing or performing rights in a song written by the band The Fall, entitled 'Touch Sensitive'. The dispute centred on whether an agreement as to the distribution of the rights was to be regarded as valid. The claimants submitted that the agreement had been the result of improper pressure being placed on the second claimant songwriter. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that the agreement had not been obtained improperly and, in the circumstances, the claim would be dismissed. 

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal brought by Mr Ralf Schrader by which he sought to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in which the General Court had dismissed his action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office, concerning Mr Schrader's application for annulment of the Community plant variety right granted for the plant variety 'LEMON SYMPHONY'. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The present proceedings concerned the retrial of the issue of the claimant Eritrean national's age. The Administrative Court held that the claimant's account and her chronology were true, and her date of birth, as she had consistently maintained, was 27 September 1994. Further, the procedural failings in the second defendant local authority's age assessments had been so serious as to be unfair and unlawful. Accordingly, they would be quashed. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 23(2) of the Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted as meaning that the method of accepting the general terms and conditions of a contract for sale by 'click-wrapping', concluded by electronic means, which contained an agreement conferring jurisdiction, constituted a communication by electronic means which provided a durable record of the agreement, within the meaning of that provision, where that method made it possible to print and save the text of those terms and conditions before the conclusion of the contract. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The father applied for variation of a shared residence order concerning a seven-year-old boy, N. The Family Court held that N had suffered emotional harm both as a result of the ongoing hostility between his parents, and because of the way his mother had immersed him in her religious beliefs and practices as a Jehovah's Witness. As neither of the parents could be relied upon to meet N's emotional needs, the shared care order should not continue. Interim removal would be a proportionate response to N's need for protection and an interim care order would be made. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The local authority issued care proceedings concerning a seven-year-old boy, N, who was the subject of a shared residence order. The issue for the Family Court was whether N should be removed from the care of his parents. It held that N had suffered and continued to suffer significant emotional harm. Persisting with the present shared care arrangement was not in his present welfare interests and placement with his father was inappropriate. Accordingly, the change required was that N be removed from the care of his parents and placed with experienced foster carers. 

Mental health – Judicial review – Human rights. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition in which the petitioner, an inpatient in a psychiatric treatment facility operating a medium level of security, sought review of the Scottish Ministers' failure to draft and lay before the Scottish Parliament regulations allowing him to challenge the level of security under which he was detained, the court held that