Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Care proceedings. In the course of care proceedings concerning four children, findings of fact were made in relation to one of the children, Z. He had been discovered to have had the drug Olanzapine in his body. The judge found that the mother was sole perpetrator. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the mother's appeal, held that the judge's conclusion about the administration of the Olanzapine discovered in Z's system by a test taken on 14 August 2013 had been neither his own speculation nor an unwarranted calculation or deduction of his own. It had been a proper inference drawn from the available factual evidence and the un-contradicted scientific opinion evidence. His conclusion was, accordingly, unassailable. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimants brought a claim for damages in defamation against the defendant following a broadcast on television. The defendant defended the claim. The claimant applied to either strike out the defence or for summary judgment. The Queen's Bench Division found that the defence was incoherent and failed to disclose any reasonable basis for defending the claim. Accordingly, the summary judgment application was allowed. 

Divorce – Ancillary relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by the trustees of a post-nuptial settlement against an order varying that settlement by way of ancillary relief following a divorce. 

Local government – Council tax. The claimant sought judicial review of the justices' order for costs of £125 against him in the local authority's favour as costs of obtaining a liability order concerning his unpaid council tax. The Administrative Court set out guidance as to the interpretation and scope of reg 34 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/613. It held that the justices had not had sufficient relevant information, and had erred in failing to make inquiries as to the computation and elements of the £125. Further, the claimant had been denied a fair opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of the proposed order by the authority's failure to provide information as to the calculation of the sum. 

Personal injury – Liability – Damages. Court of Session: In an action by a motorcyclist who underwent a below-knee left leg amputation after he collided in darkness with a milk tanker which was reversing into a farm road and blocking the road on which he was travelling, the court concluded that the accident was caused partly by the fault of the pursuer and partly by the fault of the defenders, that the proportion of blame attributable to the pursuer fell to be assessed at 40%, and that damages for the cost of prosthetics must be calculated in accordance with the defenders' expert's recommendations. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellants appealed against orders for their extradition to Lithuania to face criminal prosecutions for abuse of office, theft, forgery and fraudulent management of accounts. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeals, held that there was no risk that the appellants were being prosecuted on account of, or that their trial would be prejudiced because of, their political opinions. There was no evidence of a real risk that the threshold as to art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be reached with respect to the prison conditions. Further, the judge had given adequate reasons and further disclosure was not justified. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant broke his neck and was attended to by an ambulance crew, for whose actions the defendant was legally responsible. The assessment by the paramedic was negligent and it was only after he arrived at hospital that the correct diagnosis was made. The central issue to be determined was whether the admitted failure to immobilise the claimant's neck was responsible for at least part of his residual disability. The Queen's Bench Division held that, on the evidence, that there was evidence of both manhandling and deterioration in the case sufficiently compelling to support the conclusion that the manhandling was responsible for the deterioration. The claim therefore had to be quantified with reference to the 'but for' assessments of comparative function. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal brought by Voss of Norway ASA (Voss) in which it sought to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union, by which that court had refused to annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), relating to invalidity proceedings between Nordic Spirit AB (publ) and Voss, concerning the registration by Voss of a three-dimensional Community trade mark. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. There was a dispute between the parties in their capacities as committee members of the Crawley Boxing Club. The claimant was the secretary and the defendant was the chairman. There was a falling out between them which, produced three claims from the claimant. There was before the court applications regarding the future management of the case including an application by the claimant for an adjournment on medical grounds. The Queen's Bench Division refused the adjournment applying established principles. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The claimant, a member of the Moroccan royal family, brought proceedings against the defendant publisher regarding an article on its website. He submitted that the article had alleged that he had entered into a conspiracy to sabotage the image of the King of Morocco. The Queen's Bench Division held that the article had only been capable of bearing one of the three defamatory meanings pleaded.