Latest Cases

European Union – Immigration. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding, amongst other things that, art 1(3) of Regulation (EC) 2252/2004 (on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States) should be interpreted as meaning that that regulation was not applicable to identity cards issued by a member states to its nationals, such as Netherlands identity cards, regardless of the period of validity and the possibility of using them for the purposes of travel outside that state. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The appellant appealed against the decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel (the Panel) of the respondent General Medical Council, holding that his fitness to practise was impaired and directing that his name be erased from the medical register. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the Panel had not been deprived of the ability to consider further evidence after it had adjourned to consider its factual findings on the issue of misconduct and had sent an embargoed draft of its findings to the parties, but had not yet handed down those findings. The Panel's refusal to admit the evidence of one witness had caused a real risk of injustice. 

Criminal law – Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against conviction in circumstances where the judge had erred in proceedings in the defendant's absence and in telling the jury that the defendant had 'absented himself'. 

Expenses – Protective expenses order. Court of Session: Refusing a motion by a petitioner, who sought judicial review of a decision not to hold a public enquiry and to grant consent for construction and operation of a wind farm, for a protective expenses order under Rule of Court 58A.3, limiting his liability in expenses, the court concluded that, having regard to the petitioner's financial position as a whole, it was not satisfied that he had made out that he could not reasonably proceed with the proceedings in the absence of a protective expenses order. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The claimant brought an action in negligence against a surgeon who had performed an amputation on the claimant's knee. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the action on the evidence holding that there had not been any negligence. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. There was before the court an application by the local authority under Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003, commonly known 'Brussels II Revised' that the proceedings regarding two children of Lithuanian origin be transferred to Lithuania. The Family Court found that the relevant conditions were satisfied and intended to request that the court in Lithuania assumed jurisdiction of the case in accordance with art 15(5) of 'Brussels II Revised'. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. Following an application by the local authority to the Court of Protection in relation to a patient PV, the official solicitor sought guidance in relation to the role of the Court of Protection in connection with applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). The Court of Protection gave guidance in particular to cases in which the CICA required a trust to be created in order to exclude any possibility that the assailant might benefit from the compensation award. Those cases were almost exclusively in the context where the assailant was a family member. 

Insolvency – Transaction at undervalue. The second claimant company experienced financial difficulties and sold property that it owned to the first defendant company, SMC. A dispute arose between SMC and the Revenue and Customs Commissioners as to whether the sale had been entered into in good faith, and whether the court should exercise its discretion to validate it. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the sale had been entered into in good faith, and that court would exercise its discretion to validate it. 

Costs – Security for costs. In the course of proceedings, the applicant, Z, sought an order for security for costs, under CPR Pt 25. The Commercial Court allowed the application, holding that the relevant criteria were satisfied, and that it was just to make the order. 

Housing – Local authority. The local authority was refused a possession order in relation to a property let to the defendant, and appealed. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the appeal on the basis that the judge had not addressed the requisite statutory factors when deciding that it was not reasonable to make an order for possession under s 85A of the Housing Act 1985.