Latest Cases

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the third sub-paragraph of art 1(1) of Council Directive (EEC) 89/665, as amended, and by arts 2, 44(1) and 53(1)(a) of Directive (EC) 2004/18. The request had been made in proceedings between eVigilo Ltd and the Lithuanian General Department of Fire and Rescue at the Ministry of the Interior concerning the evaluation of tenders in a public procurement procedure. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. Following an application by the patient's son, VL, to be a deputy for the patient (his father), the Court of Protection granted the application. In the order appointing VL as deputy, the court was to require VL to obtain and maintain security of £550,000. VL further said that he was prepared to send his sisters a report on his management of PL's property and finances. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the first defendant Secretary of State's decision to grant planning permission, allowing the demolition of buildings and redevelopment, including eight new buildings with office, retail and residential uses. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector appointed by the Secretary of State had not erred in having regarded the developer's report as sufficient for his decision. Although the inspector had erred in dispensing with statements of case, there had been no prejudice. Further, the inspector's conduct had fallen below that which was to be expected, but that had not demonstrated a real possibility of bias. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The defendant engaged the claimant to carry out electrical works. The claimant applied for summary judgment to enforce two adjudicator's decisions, ordering the defendant to pay the claimant two sums of money, arising out of the contracts. The defendant challenged the decisions on the grounds of breach of natural justice and jurisdiction. The Technology and Construction Court, in rejecting the defendant's grounds of challenge, entered judgment for the claimant, refused to grant a stay of execution and ordered that the sum due was to be paid within seven days. 

Practice – Parties. The first defendant in the proceedings, S, applied to be removed as a defendant. He contended that a shareholders' agreement at the heart of the proceedings did not affect him, as he had not been a shareholder. The Commercial Court held that, on the true construction of the agreement, it was appropriate to remove S as a party. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The victim, who had a substantial portfolio of assets, was murdered after befriending the first defendant. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing his appeal against conviction for murder, held that nothing had occurred which would lead the court to conclude that the conviction was unsafe. 

Will – Validity. A dispute arose between the claimant daughter and the defendant son as to a will made by their mother, AA. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the will in issue was valid as AA had not read the will, but had read a summary of its provisions, and had not been subjected to undue coercion in making it. The court held that, having regard to the animosity between the parties and the defendant's failure to comply with an order of the court, his removal as executor was justified. 

Arbitrator – Appointment. Multiple arbitrations took place in a construction dispute. The claimants sought to enforce the fourth arbitration. The defendant submitted that there had been an appearance of bias on the part of the adjudicator, S. The Technology and Construction Court held that a fair-minded observer would have concluded that the failure to disclose certain conversations had given rise to the real possibility that S had been biased. Further, on the evidence, the defendant had not waived his right to allege apparent bias. 

Minor – Abduction. The applicant mother sought an order for the summary return to Mexico of her two year old daughter, C, claiming that C had come to England for a short visit and that the respondent father had retained her in England. The Family Court held that C had come to England with her mother as part of a family plan to relocate to England indefinitely, and possibly permanently. At the point of her departure from Mexico, in April 2014, C had lost her habitual residence there. There had been no wrongful retention and the mother's application for a summary return failed. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 4(1) of Directive (EC) 2008/104 (on temporary agency work) should be interpreted as meaning that: – the provision was addressed only to the competent authorities of the member states, imposing on them an obligation to review in order to ensure that any potential prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work were justified, and, therefore, – the provision did not impose an obligation on national courts not to apply any rule of national law containing prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work which were not justified on grounds of general interest within the meaning of art 4(1).