Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The mother was the sole carer of a child who was born in 2012. In 2014, the child suffered injuries, which the medical evidence attributed to abuse. The local authority applied for care and placement orders. The Family Division conducted a fact-finding hearing and ruled that the child's injuries had been inflicted deliberately by her mother, that the threshold for orders had been met, both by the suffering of significant harm and by the clear risk of repetition. Care and placement orders were granted to allow the authority to implement a plan in respect of the child. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The mother appealed against an order providing for R to have supervised contact with her father. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that it was clear that the judge had given full and proper consideration to each of the relevant factors necessary for the risk assessment required by s 1 of the Children Act 1989 and the Family Procedure Rules 2010, Practice Direction 12J. His conclusion that face-to-face contact was in R's best interests, in a supervised setting, was justified on the basis of that risk assessment and was a conclusion that had been well within the range of justifiable welfare determinations. 

Immigration – Asylum – Leave to appeal. Court of Session: Refusing an application for leave to appeal by a Sri Lankan asylum seeker, whose claim was rejected by the First Tier Tribunal and whose appeal was dismissed by the Upper Tribunal, the court concluded that there was not a strongly arguable error of law in the case and the application did not therefore meet the second appeals test. 

Arbitration – Adjudication. The claimant applied for summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator's decision that there had been a complete failure of consideration by the defendant and his order for the defendant to pay the sum of the claimant's advanced payment. The Technology and Construction Court, in allowing the application, held that the adjudicator had had jurisdiction to decide whether there had been a total failure of consideration and whether the claimant was entitled to repayment. Further, he had been entitled to order restitution, as that had been an available remedy for the breach of contract. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The claimant had a high public profile. The defendant, her boyfriend, had threatened to expose her adulterous relationship with a married man, who was also said to be a very high profile public figure. The claimant applied, without notice, for an interim injunction against the defendant, or for interim non-disclosure orders to restrain him from publishing pictures from her journal or other such private information about the affair. The Chancery Division, in granting the orders sought, held that it was satisfied on the evidence that the information in question was clearly private and personal information in relation to which the claimant had had a reasonable expectation of privacy and confidentiality. The claimant's right to respect for her private life clearly weighed more heavily in the balance than the defendant's desire to exercise any freedom of expression in publishing that private life. 

Civil procedure – Third party contribution – Relevancy and specification of averments. Court of Session: Allowing a reclaiming motion in an action in which solicitors, having admitted liability for an error in a rent review clause in a lease and paid a substantial sum to settle the pursuer's claim, sought a contribution from the third party (surveyors), the court held that the defender had pled sufficient relevant and specific averments against the third party that a proof before answer should be allowed and recalled the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor dismissing the action. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The claimant father brought proceedings in the Scottish court concerning a residence order that the defendant mother sought in relation to two children. He maintained that the mother's proceedings were a wrongful retention within the meaning of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980. The Lord Ordinary granted the father's application, but the Extra Division dismissed it on appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Extra Division had not erred, and that the children had been resident in Scotland as contended by the mother. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union granted the annulment sought by adidas AG in respect of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between adidas AG and Shoe Branding Europe BVBA, regarding the application by the latter company for registration of a figurative mark consisting of 'two parallel lines positioned on the outside surface of the upper part of a shoe' as a Community trade mark. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Germany to face trial for six offences of fraud, allegedly committed in 2007. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the evidence had not led to a conclusion that the judicial authority's delay had been culpable and the judge had been entitled to conclude that extradition would not be oppressive. Further, there was no discernible error of law in the judge's finding that the appellant's extradition would not constitute a disproportionate interference with his and his family's right to family life, in particular, as a European Supervision Order was not available. 

Company – Transfer of shares. The claimant owned shares in a company. Other shareholders formed a corporate vehicle, by which they sought to acquire all shares in the company. All members of the company except the claimant accepted the offer. The claimant brought proceedings, contending that unfair prejudice had occurred, including that the company had sought to expropriate his shares at a gross undervalue. His claim was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, set out the principles, extracted from previous authority, as to the conditions for an effective challenge to an alteration to a company's articles.