Latest Cases

Proceeds of crime – Restraint order – Recall: Court of Session: Refusing an application presented by way of note for recall of a restraint order granted in 2003 

Practice – Summary judgment. When the defendant purported to terminate a haulage and warehousing agreement with the claimant, the claimant issued proceedings alleging breach of the contractual arrangements between them based on conduct over the preceding years. The defendant applied for summary judgment. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claims, but allowed the claimant an opportunity to re-formulate its claim in respect of periods not covered by variations to the agreements where it was possible that a re-worked claim would have a real prospect of success. 

Immigration – Workers. The claimant residential care home for the elderly sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, removing it from the Tier 2 register of licensed sponsors on the basis that K had not had the role of public relations officer stated in his certificate of sponsorship. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been entitled to rely upon interview records with the claimant's staff. Accordingly, the Secretary of State had been entitled to conclude that K's role had been substantially that of a senior care worker and not a public relations officer. 

Divorce – Separation. Following the conclusion of the parties' marriage, the wife made applications seeking orders regarding a property in London. S, a company in which the husband had shares, and which he had established, made a claim against the wife for possession of the property. The Family Division held that the property would be transferred to the wife, as would her shareholding in S. S's application was dismissed. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. There was a final consent order made in proceedings between the husband and wife. The wife applied to vary the order. The husband contended that the wife had to appeal for which she needed permission. The Family Division held that the wife was entitled to proceed as she had and that she did not need the permission of the court, guidance was also given on Family Procedure Rules 2955/10, 30.3(1)(a). 

Practice – Striking out. Following the handing down of judgment by the court on an application by the defendant to strike out the claim, the defendant made an application for the court to be allowed to raise a further point. The Technology and Construction Court held that, given that the defendant had already had a proper opportunity to consider the point, it was not appropriate to entertain the application. 

Criminal evidence – Evidence of bad character. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against conviction, rejecting the defendant's grounds of appeal regarding the admission of bad character evidence. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the application by the European Commission for a declaration that by adopting and maintaining in force the tax scheme provided for in para 6b of the German Law on Income Tax, Germany had failed to fulfil its obligations under art 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and art 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding, amongst other things, that art 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (on insolvency proceedings) should be interpreted as applying to a situation in which a payment, challenged by an insolvency administrator, of a sum of money attached before the opening of the insolvency proceedings had been made only after the opening of those proceedings 

Practice – Civil Procedure Rules. The Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice handed down new Practice Directions and amendments to the existing Practice Directions supplementing the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.