Latest Cases

Minor – Abduction. The father had left the child in Singapore with his parents and the mother had sought the child's return to England. The court had determined that the English courts had jurisdiction based on the child's habitual residence, while the issues of welfare and forum conveniens were to be dealt with at a later date. During wardship proceedings, the judge stated that he had been asked to reconsider habitual residence by incorporating those two outstanding issues. The judge found that the court had previously found that the proper forum was England and made orders against the father. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the father's appeal and held that the judge had not properly engaged in a legally correct, or procedurally correct, way with the issue of forum. 

Bank – Transaction. The respondent brought a claim against the appellant bank, alleging dishonest assistance, knowing receipt and a proprietary right to the proceeds of sale in respect of an art collection, which had been owned by her deceased father, but had been sold by her sister's friend. The proceeds could be traced to the bank through a number of transactions. The Chief Justice dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal of Gibraltar held in favour of the respondent. The issue was whether the bank had been on constructive notice of impropriety. The Privy Council, dismissing the bank's appeal, agreed with the conclusions of the Court of Appeal for the most part that the bank had been on constructive notice of impropriety. 

Housing – Homeless person. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to refuse him public housing on the basis that he lacked capacity. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it was bound by authority to the effect that that there was no purpose in making an offer of accommodation to a person so disabled that he was unable to comprehend or evaluate the offer. Further, under the Housing Act 1996 and the National Assistance Act 1948, a need for accommodation was a prerequisite. As the claimant continued to reside with his father, his need for accommodation was met. 

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that, in the context of a public contract not subject to Directive (EC) 2004/18 because its value fell below the threshold for application of that directive, but which had certain cross-border interest, which it was for the referring court to ascertain, the fundamental rules and general principles of the FEU Treaty, in particular the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination and the consequent obligation of transparency, should be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority could not reject a tender which satisfied the requirements of the contract notice on grounds which were not set out in that notice. 

Adoption – Order. The applicant was the biological father of a child, aged seven months, who had been born to him through surrogacy arrangements made with the applicant's mother and through a fertility clinic. The Family Court granted the order for adoption where the arrangement had been entirely lawful under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and where the court was satisfied that the child's lifelong welfare needs would be met by the court making the order. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court made a declaration of parentage in favour of X, in circumstances where a fertility clinic was found to have mislaid the requisite consent form relating to parenthood prior to treatment. X was the partner of Y who had conceived the child, Z, using donor sperm following treatment at the clinic. 

Limitation of action – Extension of time limit. The claimant claimed damages for personal injury alleged to have been inflicted upon her as a result of sexual abuse committed against her by the defendant, from about 1974 and 1982. In 2013, at a trial of preliminary issues, the judge dismissed the action, having refused to exercise the court's discretion, under s 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, to order that the provisions of s 11 of the Act should not apply. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. It held that the judge had not erred in law and he had been entitled to reach the overall conclusion that he had in deciding whether to exercise the discretion. 

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant was convicted of rape and assault by penetration of his adult daughter, who had been placed for adoption shortly after birth, but had reunited with the defendant in her thirties. The defendant had contended at trial that sexual intercourse had been consensual. He appealed against conviction on the ground that, among other things, the judge's summing up had been deficient in that it had not gone into the detail of text messages sent the complainant to the defendant which contradicted her evidence that sex had been non-consensual. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the appeal, held that, the conviction could not be held to be safe in the face of the deficiencies revealed by the summing up. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The claimant was an unsuccessful party in a tendering exercise. It brought proceedings against the defendant local authority, and an automatic suspension was imposed. The authority applied to lift the suspension. The Technology and Construction Court held that the advantages to the authority if the suspension was lifted would be very small, but the disadvantages to the claimant would be fundamental. As a result, the suspension would remain in force until the trial. 

Landlord and tenant – Premises. The issue on the appeal was whether a right to manage (RTM) company could acquire the management of more than one set of premises, as defined in s 72 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that references in s 72 of the Act to 'premises' were to a single, self-contained building or part of the building, and that, likewise, references to 'the premises' or 'premises' or 'any premises' in ss 73, 74, 78 and 79 and other provisions of the Act were references to a single, self-contained building or part of the building. Accordingly, it was not open to an RTM company to acquire the right to manage more than one self-contained building or part of a building.