Latest Cases

Power of attorney – Revocation. MC executed a lasting power of attorney for property and affairs (the LPA), in which she appointed her daughter (SR) and her son (NC) jointly and severally to be her attorneys. The Public Guardian applied for orders for the revocation and cancellation of the LPA and directing that the local authority be invited to apply for appointment as deputy. The Court of Protection held that, whilst SR had unquestionably behaved in a way that had contravened her authority and was not in MC's best interests, NC had not behaved or proposed to behave in such a way. Accordingly, there were no grounds on which his appointment could be revoked. 

European Union – Patent. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Spain for the annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 (implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements), thereby rejecting the pleas in law relied on by Spain. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The parties had agreed that the court should, in response to a request, make a transfer to the Lithuanian Central Authority in respect of a girl pursuant to art 15 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility). The court then made an interim child arrangement order in preparation for the child's return. However, the Lithuanian Central Authority then communicated that it no longer sought such a request as it considered that the English court had resolved the issue of guardianship. The parties no longer sought a transfer. The Family Court determined that, in the circumstances, a final child arrangement order would be made in favour of family members of the child that would facilitate her return to Lithuania, but that no transfer request would be made, the Lithuanian courts being best placed to deal with the child's future long term issues once her habitual residence there was established. 

Proceeds of crime – Unlawful conduct. The second defendant objected to the inclusion of the matrimonial home in the claimant National Crime Agency's application for a civil recovery order (CRO) in respect of seven properties, four bank accounts and a Rolex watch. The Queen's Bench Division held that there was an overwhelming case against the first defendant for misconduct consisting of drug-dealing, money laundering and mortgage fraud, such that all the property was recoverable. With respect to the matrimonial home, the statutory exception to its inclusion in the CRO in s 266 of the Proceeds of Crimes Act 2002 had not been made out. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The judge had ordered the immediate removal of two children from their grandparents' care and made an interim care order so that the children could be observed in foster care and a care plan formulated. The grandparents' appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, Civil Division. In the circumstances, while the grandparents had not been ruled out as long term carers for the children and the children's safety had not been in immediate danger, their immediate removal had been warranted by the potential risk to their ability to remain together as siblings in the long term based on the escalating bad behaviour of one child which the grandparents had found difficult to control. While the judge was criticised for not granting a longer stay to allow the grandparents time to appeal removal, that was not a sufficient ground on which to allow the appeal. 

Reparation – Personal injury – Liability. Court of Session: In an action by a pursuer who, when an eleven-year-old schoolboy, was struck and injured by the defenders' bus near a bus stop, the court, granting decree for the agreed sum of £8,000 damages on full liability, held that the bus was too close to the kerb, it was negligent to have driven in such a way as to hit someone on the kerb even if he was at the edge, and there was no room for any contributory negligence, especially in view of the pursuer's age. 

Consumer credit – Agreement. The claimant brought mortgage possession proceedings against the defendant, pursuant to the terms of a written loan facility agreement. A money judgment was given for the claimant. The defendant appealed, contending that the judge had erred in law in enforcing the contractual liability by a money judgment, because the facility was a regulated agreement under s 8(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and, since its form and content were not as prescribed by the Act and regulations made thereunder, it could only be enforced by an enforcement order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal. It rejected the claimant's submission that the defendant was estopped by her declaration in the facility from denying that the agreement had been unregulated and, in the circumstances, there was no injustice in permitting the defendant to take that point of law for the first time on appeal. 

European Union – Patent. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the application by Spain for annulment of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection), thereby rejecting the pleas relied on by Spain in support of its action. 

Warrant – Search warrant. The claimants issued judicial review proceedings, challenging their arrests and search warrants, issued by the second defendant and executed by the first defendant National Crime Agency (the NCA). The Divisional Court held that the arrests had been lawful. However, the search warrants had been unlawful and to an extent further than that conceded by the NCA. Accordingly, it was ordered to deliver up the seized material, and deliver up or destroy all copies, schedules and other work product derived from the seized material. The NCA was further prohibited from using the material or anything derived from it. 

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, read in conjunction with art 13(1) of that regulation, should be interpreted, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, as not precluding a migrant worker, who was subject to the legislation of the state of employment, from receiving, by virtue of national legislation of the member state of residence, an old-age pension and family benefits from the latter state.