Latest Cases

Practice – Litigant in person. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Lord Chancellor's appeal, held that it was not possible to interpret either s 1 of the Courts Act 2003 or s 31G(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 as having given the court the power to require the Lord Chancellor to provide funding for legal representation, in circumstances where such funding was not available under a scheme as detailed and comprehensive as that which had been set up under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The court had to respect the boundaries drawn by Parliament for public funding of legal representation. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In care proceedings concerning two children, the father sought to look after the children alone in Turkey, a plan supported by the mother. The local authority and children's guardian sought that the children stay with their foster parents, who should have the status of special guardians. The Family Court held that, in the circumstances, the best interests of the children would not be served by placing them with their father. Special guardianship orders were granted and plans for contact were approved. 

European Union – Environment. The General Court of the European Union dismissed an action brought by the applicants for the partial annulment of a decision by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) identifying certain respiratory sensitisers as substances of very high concern and including them in the list of candidate substances in accordance with art 59 of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals). The Court held, among other things, that the wording of art 57(f) of the Regulation did not rule out the inclusion of respiratory sensitisers such as in the present case within scope of that provision and that the arguments put forward by the applicants did not show that the ECHA's assessment as to the irreversible nature of the effects on health was vitiated by a manifest error. 

Sale of goods – Delivery. The parties entered repo transactions concerning metal. The first claimant commenced proceedings, seeking declarations that bring forward notices served by the defendants were invalid or superseded by its notice declaring a termination event. The Commercial Court held that the defendants had not effected delivery for the purpose of the parties' agreements and it was liable for damages for failure to deliver with respect to one transaction. Further, the bring forward notices were valid and the first claimant was in breach of those obligations. Furthermore, the defendants were entitled to terminate the agreements as a matter of contract and common law. 

Insolvency – Individual voluntary arrangement. The respondent former debtor's individual voluntary arrangement had been successfully completed and the appellant former supervisor had issued a completion certificate, under para 9(2) of the R3 Standard Conditions (version 2), before further funds had been received. The county court held that the funds should be paid to the respondent and the appellant appealed. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that para 9(2) of the Standard Conditions operated to release a debtor from all debts subject to the arrangement and meant that the arrangement had come to an end. Accordingly, the county court had reached the correct conclusion. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. After having served nearly six years' imprisonment, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the claimant's appeal and imposed a total determinate sentence of three years and six months (see [2013] EWCA Crim 70). The claimant issued proceedings for damages under ss 6(1) and 7(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and art 5(1)(a) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that the sentence had been passed by a competent court, acting within its jurisdiction, within due procedure and without arbitrariness. In any event, the claim was met by a defence under the limitation period. 

Food Safety – Food of animal origin – Application of EU Regulation. Sheriff Court: In an application for orders to condemn and destroy food seized on the premises of a food storage and distribution business for a failure to comply with food safety requirements, in which the pursuer asserted that the defender was not allowed to operate a meat cutting plant within the premises without the Food Standards Agency's prior approval in terms of Regulation (EC) 853/2004, and the defender argued that it was exempt from the application of the Regulation, the court, granting the orders as craved, held that because the defender did not operate a 'retail establishment' it was not eligible to claim the exemption afforded by art 1.5(b) of the Regulation, and it had failed to establish the other qualifying criteria in the exemption provision. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The claimant issued proceedings, alleging failure by the defendant's spinal orthopaedic surgeon, B, to see and diagnose a scoliosis of his spine. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the application, held that, on the evidence, B had made a mistake and the scoliosis had been present on both occasions, and B should have seen it and noted it. That he had not done so had been a breach of his duty to the claimant. 

Parent and child – Contact – Parental rights and responsibilities. Sheriff Court: Allowing an appeal against a sheriff's interlocutor depriving the father of a child of all his parental rights and responsibilities and refusing to make a contact order, the court held that the sheriff had erred in refusing to make a contact order in favour of the appellant, attaching too little weight to the parent-child relationship and too much weight to the appellant's two convictions, and the proper course now was to suspend rather than deprive him of his parental rights and responsibilities. 

Building – Contract. The claimant local authority entered into a contract with the defendant, which contained provisions governing the defendant's entitlement to make applications for interim payments. The authority sought declarations that: (i) application 21 was invalid and that the adjudicator's decision in respect of it was wrong; and (ii) no money was due under application 22. The Technology and Construction Court held that application 21 was not valid, that the adjudicator's decision could not stand and that the authority was entitled to the declaration sought. Further, it was entitled to the declaration sought as to application 22.