Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The local authority appealed against a decision of the second judge allowing the parents' appeal against care orders and placement for adoption orders made by the first judge in respect of two of their children. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held, inter alia, that the process adopted by the second judge had failed to afford a fair or proper hearing of the parents' appeals. The order of the second judge would be set aside and the parents' appeals would be reheard by a different tribunal. 

Immigration – Deportation. The appellant was believed to be an Algerian national but refused to provide details of his identity. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) decided that he could no longer be detained pending deportation, as there was no reasonable prospect of removing him to Algeria and he was subsequently released on bail. In allowing the appellant's application for judicial review, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that bail could not be granted, under paras 22 and 29 of Sch 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, where a person was unlawfully detained purportedly under para 2(2) of Sch 3 or where a person not currently in detention could not lawfully be detained under that provision. Further, the appellant's appeal against the decision of SIAC to strike out his appeal against the notice of intention to deport, was allowed on the ground that SIAC had failed to address his contention that revealing his identity might put his family at risk in Algeria. 

Extradition – Extradition order. Given that, in the majority of cases in extradition proceedings under Pt 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, defendants sought to rely on art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to resist extradition to other states within the European Union, the Divisional Court gave guidance on the approach that should be taken at the extradition hearing by a district judge and the proper approach on an appeal. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Lidl Siftung & Co. KG (Lidl) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Horno del Espinar and Lidl in relation to the application by Lidl for registration of a figurative sign depicting the word 'Castello' as a Community trade mark. 

Family proceedings – Orders. In earlier care proceedings, findings of fact were made in respect of the circumstances surrounding the death of a child (P) in 2012. Family proceedings ended with the making of care orders concerning the other children of the family. Subsequently, new medical evidence emerged, a new inquest was ordered in respect of P, a serious case review was in progress and it was announced that criminal proceedings were not to be taken against either of P's parents. The father applied for the discharge of the care orders and for a contact order. The application, which amounted to an application for a rehearing, was supported by the children's guardian, but opposed by the local authority and the mother. The Family Division held that, on the facts, justice required that a further hearing should take place. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants appealed against two orders of two different masters on the basis of whether the orders properly gave permission to the defendant to amend his defence and counterclaim in the significant manner he purported to do and to withdraw admissions made in the original. The claimant contended that neither master complied with the Civil Procedure Rules in making these orders. The Queen's Bench Division held that while the masters might not have applied the rules precisely, the claimant had been treated fairly given the manner in which he had pursued his claim over the last 18 months. He was in as good a position to obtain the remedy or relief from the court he sought as he would have been had the masters approached the procedural issues differently. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. Two applications were heard together because they contained some common issues, in particular, whether the inspectors appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State had omitted to consider an inspector's report into the emerging core strategy concerning the area's housing needs (the report). The Administrative Court held that, in the first claim, the report had been material and it could not be said that the decision would have been the same, such that the discretion not to quash the decision could not be exercised. However, with respect to the second claim, although the inspector had clearly been in error, it had not been one that had clearly affected the outcome. 

Competition – Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled on the application by DSG Retail Ltd and its parent company for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction proceedings brought under s 47A of the Competition Act 1998. The tribunal decided that permission would be refused for service of the claim as presently pleaded alleging infringing acts by the defendants after a certain date, but was otherwise granted on the basis that the pleadings were amended in accordance with the present ruling. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the decision of the first defendant Secretary of State to dismiss its appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of outline planning permission. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that: (i) the Secretary of State had failed to identify the nature and extent of any conflict with the neighbourhood plan; (ii) para 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework applied to an emerging development plan; (iii) the Secretary of State had failed to apply his policy on prematurity; and (iv) the Secretary of State had failed to apply his policy on the weight to be given to an emerging plan. 

Divorce – Costs. The wife appealed against an order of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica dismissing her appeal in respect of her applications under the Married Women's Property Act 1887 (Jamaica) (the 1987 Act) and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1989 (Jamaica) (the 1989 Act). The Board held that the appeal under the 1887 Act would be dismissed but the appeal under the 1989 Act would be allowed and her application reheard.