Latest Cases

Mental health – Patient. AW's nephew and, DB, the brother-in-law of his companion, MG, made competing applications for appointments as his deputy for property and affairs. The parties disputed the status of the relationship between AW and MG. The Court of Protection held that MG was the most important person in AW's life and her views as to what was in his best interests carried considerable weight. On the evidence, DB would be appointed as AW's deputy. 

Town and country planning – Trees. The appellant appealed against the decision of the inspector appointed by the first respondent Secretary of State, dismissing his appeal against a tree replacement notice. The Planning Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the inspector's use of 'potential trees' had referred to seedlings/saplings, which had been uncontroversial. He had been entitled to rely on an estimate of the number of trees removed and which were required to be planted. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The main issue in the proceedings was whether the first defendant was personally liable to repay the first to third claimants money which they or their companies had paid to the second defendant, which had then been deployed directly or indirectly in property deals in Dubai, which had been arranged by the first defendant. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim in respect of that issue, held that the first defendant had acted entirely in accordance with the mandate he had been given by the claimants in applying the money and there was no evidence or acknowledgement by him that he was personally liable to the claimants for any advances they had made. 

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. 

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. 

Employment – Worker. The claimant construction worker brought a claim in the employment tribunal asserting that he had been subjected to detrimental treatment by virtue of his trade union and health and safety activities. His claim was dismissed by the tribunal on the basis that he had never been an employee of the defendant company. Before the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, S sought to rely on, among other things, arts 8 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court, in dismissing S's appeal, held that the tribunal had reached a sustainable conclusion consistent with the evidence and that the human rights legislation had no traction in the present case. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.