Latest Cases

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. 

Sentence – Notification and orders. The claimants' applications for review of the notification requirements imposed following their convictions for serious sexual offences were dismissed. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant magistrates court's decisions dismissing their appeals. The Divisional Court held that the claimants bore the burden of establishing that they should no longer be subject to the notification requirements on the balance of probabilities and that a proportionality test, with respect to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was not required. On the facts, the first claimant's claim would be allowed and the second claimant's claim dismissed. 

Power of attorney – Revocation. The Court of Protection revoked a lasting power of attorney which had been granted to the sons of an elderly lady with dementia who lived in a care home, having been satisfied that the attorneys had behaved in a way that contravened their authority and was not in ID's best interests. 

Landlord and tenant – Forfeiture of lease. The district judge had made a declaration that a head lease held by the defendants be forfeited following the lapse of a stay that had been granted in respect of earlier possession proceedings. The defendants' appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal, Civil Division. It held that that judge had made a number of errors in his judgment and, in the circumstances, the defendants breaches of the covenants in the head lease had been remedied so it would be unjust and disproportionate to deprive them of their property. However, the defendants were ordered to pay certain costs in respect of the premises and head lease. 

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. 

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. 

Practice – Civil litigation. N, a former employee of Lloyd's brought several claims which were deemed unmeritorious. Lloyds obtained a CRO against N. Upon expiry of the CRO, Lloyds applied for an extended CRO. The Queen's Bench Division held that the court had the power and the discretion to make the extended CRO. 

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. 

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that Regulation No 1408/71 (EC) 1408/71 (on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community) should be interpreted as meaning that levies on income from assets, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, had, when they contributed to the financing of compulsory social security schemes, a direct and relevant link with some of the branches of social security listed in art 4 of that regulation and thus fell within the scope of the regulation, even though those levies were imposed on the income from assets of taxable persons, irrespective of the pursuit by them of any professional activity. 

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.