Latest Cases

Reparation – Personal injury – Negligence – Duty of care. Court of Session: Dismissing an action in which the pursuer sought damages for injuries he sustained when snow, ice and guttering fell from a roof and struck him, averring that the defenders inspected the property and removed ice and snow from the roof but failed to remove ice from the guttering, the court held that the first defenders were not performing any statutory duty to which it might have been easy to attach a common law duty, they were acting under statutory powers only, neither defender caused the problem, nor had they made it worse, and there was no proximity or assumption of responsibility. 

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. 

Admiralty – Jurisdiction. The claimant German ship management company brought claims against the defendant owners and or demise charterers of six anchor-handling tugs (the vessels). The claimants sought damages for unlawful termination of ship management agreements by the defendant (the ship management claims). It further contended that it was a co-owner of the vessels, under the owners' articles of association and that the owners had wrongfully sold the vessels without notice (the articles of association claim). The defendants contended that the English court did not have jurisdiction in relation the articles of association claims and sought declarations to that effect. The Admiralty Court stayed the ship management claims, ruling that the defendants were not entitled to submit to the jurisdiction of the court in respect of them. The defendants succeeded in their challenge to the jurisdiction in respect of the articles of association claim which was for damages caused by the sale of the vessels and, therefore, could not be properly characterised as a claim to the ownership of the vessel, falling within s 20(2)(a) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Power of attorney – Revocation. The proceedings concerned a lasting power of attorney (LPA) for property and financial affairs, in which EL had appointed her two children as her attorneys. On the application of the Public Guardian, the Court of Protection made an order revoking the LPA and inviting a panel deputy to apply to be appointed as EL's deputy for property and affairs, in circumstances where it had found, inter alia, that the LPA was not functioning satisfactorily because of the corrosive effect of the animosity between the attorneys, that the attorneys had behaved in a way that was not in EL's best interests and that EL lacked the capacity to revoke the LPA. 

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.