Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Care proceedings. Allegations had been made, and subsequently retracted, by two children against their father accusing him of involvement in a satanic cult that engaged in the sexual abuse and murder of children. In the course of care proceedings, the Family Court carried out a fact finding hearing which concluded that neither child had been abused by anyone named by the children, including the father, and that there had been no satanic cult. The children's false stories had come about as the result of relentless emotional and psychological pressure as well as significant physical abuse perpetrated by the mother's then partner in collaboration with the mother. 

Limitation of action – Extension of time limit. The claimant brought a claim against in the defendant in libel. The defendant belatedly issued an application dated 19 June 2014 to strike out the claim on the footing that the claim form had not been issued within the limitation period, so that the claim was time-barred. The claimant sought to utilise s 34 of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period. The Queen's Bench refused the application. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Care proceedings were commenced in respect of a child, JC. The issue at trial was as to the level of the risk posed to the mother and JC by the father and whether such risk could be managed. The judge held that the risk could not be safely managed and made care and placement orders in respect of JC. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the mother and father's appeal, held that the judge had had all necessary information with which to reach the conclusions she had. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The mother appealed, supported by the father, against a care order and a placement order made in respect of their son, J, who was eight months old at the time of the hearing. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judicial analysis given to the case, as evidenced by the judgment, had been, by a wide margin, wholly inadequate. 

Confidential information – Disclosure. Information relating to exams was placed on the defendant's website. The claimant local authority sought an injunction, compelling the defendant to remove the material. The Chancery Division, in allowing the application, held that, among other things, the information had not become generally known and that the defendant did not have a public interest defence. 

Costs – Order for costs. In earlier proceedings, the court had determined preliminary issues in a claim alleging professional negligence against defendant conveyancing solicitors, in which separate sample actions had been directed to be tried together. The court made rulings as to the appropriate orders for costs in all the circumstances. 

Adoption – Practice. An application had been made by a British citizen to adopt her cousin, a Pakistan national. The application was made before his eighteenth birthday, but the present proceedings took place after that birthday. The Family Court held that the court would rarely make an adoption order when it would confer no benefits upon the child during its childhood but gave a right of abode for the rest of its life. That was not inconsistent with s 1(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. In the present case, where the only benefit to adoption would be the grant of citizenship, the application was dismissed. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The offender was stopped by Revenue and Customs officers on entering the United Kingdom and found to have cocaine and heroin with an estimated street value of just under £11.5m. He was subsequently found to have made five similar trips on previous occasions. He was convicted of four counts of importation of Class A drugs. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that his sentence of eight years' imprisonment had been unduly lenient in circumstances where the offender had played a significant rather than a lesser role in the importation. His sentence was quashed and substituted for one of 16 years' imprisonment. 

European Union – Internal market. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 25 of Directive (EC) 2003/55 (concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive (EC) 98/30), and of arts 41 and 54 of Directive (EC) 2009/73 (concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive (EC) 2003/55). The reference had been made in proceedings between E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt. and the Hungarian energy and public utility service regulator, concerning the amendment by that authority of the rules of the gas network code relating to long-term reserve capacity and managing congestion. 

Costs – Orders for costs. Following the determination of the substantive part of judicial review proceedings, the issue of costs awarded against the claimant by the first defendant Crown Court fell to be determined. The Divisional Court held that the pre-existing broad power, under r 12 of the Crown Court Rules 1982, SI 1982/1109, no longer applied and applications under s 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 were not covered. Further, the Crown Court, as a creature of statute, lacked any inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Crown Court had had no jurisdiction to order costs.