Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant sought declarations of non-liability in respect of claims which the first defendant, Petromena, had brought against it in Norway. Petromena appealed against an order refusing a declaration that the English court had no jurisdiction over the claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the order on the ground that the English court had jurisdiction under art 24 of the Lugano Convention, by reason of Petromena's appearance by filing a second acknowledgment of service. 

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant appealed against his conviction for threatening to destroy or damage property, alleging that the judge had erred in directing the jury that the test was whether he had intended the listener to fear that he might carry out the threat. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the listener could have the relevant fear, even where he was not certain that the threat would be carried out. Accordingly, there had been no misdirection as such and it had not rendered the verdict unsafe. 

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. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, amongst other things, that art 168 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax), as amended, had to be interpreted as meaning that, where the exemption from VAT provided for by national law was incompatible with the VAT Directive, art 168 did not permit a taxable person both to benefit from that exemption and to exercise the right to deduct. 

Nationality – British nationality. The claimant Sri Lankan national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of his application for naturalisation as a British citizen, as he lacked good character by virtue of his long-term and significant support to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had applied the correct evidential test and had considered her own nationality guidance, which had not required her to take a holistic approach. 

Contract – Formation of contract. The Commercial Court considered a dispute as to the licensing of the defendant's products to appear, among other things, in three episodes of a television programme. The court held that, while it had not been proved that the memorandum between the parties had been signed by both of them, acceptance of its terms had been communicated by conduct, and the defendant had been in breach of contract. 

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.