Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The judge refused the father's application for direct contact with his two daughters and made an order under s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the father's appeal against the orders. It held, inter alia, that there was nothing in the chronology of the proceedings that would lead the court to criticise the way in which the legal system had handled the case. The orders that the judge had made as to contact and under s 91(14) of the Act had been open to him in accordance with the law and nothing said in argument had persuaded the court that he had erred in proceeding as he had. 

Elections – Election court. Four electors in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the Borough) brought a petition under the Representation of the People Act 1983, challenging the Mayoral Election in the Borough held on 22 May 2014. The Queen's Bench Division held that the majority of the allegations in the petition had been made out and that the election of the first respondent as Mayor of the Borough was avoided by such corrupt or illegal practices pursuant to s 159(1) of the 1983 Act and also to have been avoided on the ground of general corruption pursuant to s 164(1)(a) of the 1983 Act. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The patient was moved to a care home for safety following an assault by her husband in her home. The matter came before the court and the local authority recommended that the patient remain in the care home in her best interests. The husband sought her return home with a limited care package. The Court of Protection held that the patient would not receive the care she needed at home and the best quality of contact with her husband would not, be achieved by a return home. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimants, wholly owned subsidiaries of Tesco group, brought a claim against the defendants seeking damages for alleged breaches of European and domestic competition law in respect of imposition of multilateral interchange fees. The defendants applied for strike out or summary judgment on basis of the principle of ex turpi causa. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that the case was unsuited to be dealt with by way of strike out or summary judgment where it involved difficult questions of law and where the facts might determine how those legal issues presented themselves for determination. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing his appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of planning permission for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the inspector had erred in his treatment of policies for the supply of housing under para 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and in misstating and misapplying the relevant test. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The appellants appealed against a child arrangements order, which provided for a child, T, to move to live with her father and his partner and, thereafter, to have extensive contact with the appellants, with whom T and her mother had been living. The unusual feature of the case was that the variation of T's living arrangements provided for by the order were to take effect only upon the anticipated death of T's mother. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had wrongly conducted his analysis of T's best interests on the basis that there was a presumption in law in favour of a natural parent. On that basis alone, the appeal had to be allowed. 

Asbestos dust – Mesothelioma. The widow and sole dependant of CS, the deceased, brought proceedings against the defendant company, which had employed him. She contended that CS had worked with asbestos while employed by the company, which had led to him developing fatal mesothelioma, which had proved fatal. The claimant had established that CS had been exposed to asbestos while in the employment of the company. A total award of £176,779.03 would be made. 

Criminal procedure/sentencing – Child pornography/ sexual offences against children. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal against conviction by an appellant who was charged with having indecent photographs of children in his possession, the court rejected a contention that the sheriff had not directed the jury adequately on the burden of proof applicable to the statutory defence raised, however it quashed the extended element of the sentence on a charge of causing a 13-year-old girl to participate in sexual activity, the sheriff having provided very little specific justification for the selection of an extended sentence. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The defendant Secretary of State sought the dismissal of the claimant's claim for judicial review on the basis of his failure to comply with a consent order, requiring the dismissal of the claim, if he failed to file amended grounds within 21 days. The claimant sought relief from sanctions and explained his failure to comply as due to his lack of funds. The Administrative Court held that the present was not an appropriate case for relief from sanctions and refused the claimant's application. It followed, applying the consent order, that the application for judicial review was to be dismissed. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) dismissed the appeal brought by LG Display Co. Ltd and LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd, requesting that the Court set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union whereby the General Court had: (i) varied Commission Decision C(2010) 8761 final relating to a proceeding under art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and art 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (the contested decision), by setting at €210,00,000 the fine imposed jointly and severally on them; and (ii) dismissed, as to the remainder, their action for the partial annulment of that decision, in so far as it concerned them, and for a reduction in the amount of that fine.