Latest Cases

Child – Care. There were before the court two applications from the local authority for a care order in relation to a little boy, A, who was born on 11 January 2014, and for a placement order. The father put himself forward as a sole carer of A. The Family Court held that the local authority's case was a tottering edifice built on inadequate foundations and flowing from that the local authority was to willing to believe the worst of the father. Both applications were dismissed. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for her extradition to Lithuania to serve an activated suspended sentence of three years' imprisonment for eight fraud offences with others. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that extradition would be a disproportionate interference with the rights of the appellant and her son under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, given the uncontradicted evidence as to the son's unresolved trauma arising from witnessing the abuse of his mother in the past and the likely detrimental consequences if he was moved from her care, and the appellant's current pregnancy. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Production of documents. In the course of proceedings between the claimant and defendant (RBS), RBS sought an order that it was not required to permit inspection of an attachment to the deferred prosecution agreement between it and the United States Department of Justice. The Chancery Division held that, in the circumstances, RBS would be ordered to produce the document for inspection in the present action. The order would take effect four weeks from the date on which it was made and a special further order would be made, providing that, until further order, neither party might refer to the document in open court without permission obtained in advance. 

Practice – Appeal. In County Court proceedings, the defendant was unsuccessful. He appealed seeking to admit fresh evidence on appeal. He had previously tried to adduce that evidence prior to judgement being given in the county Court but the judge had refused the application. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division allowed the application on the basis that the case was not one of those typical cases in which the evidence had come to light after the proceedings had been concluded indicating that the trial court had been deliberately misled. 

Company – Restoration to register. The claimant sought to bring a claim against a company that had been dissolved. He applied for the restoration of the company to the register of companies, pursuant to s 1032 of the Companies Act 2006. He also sought directions to preserve his position against any argument that his claim was statute-barred on account of an earlier date of relevant knowledge. The Chancery Division held that, on the facts, justice required that the directions be made. 

Shipping – Charterparty. A charterparty contained an 'in-transit loss' clause (ITL clause) and a further clause, providing that the respondent owners were entitled to the protection of the relevant articles of the Hague-Visby Rules in respect of 'any claim' made under the charterparty. En route, pirates took control of the vessel and some cargo was lost. The appellant charterer contended that the owner was liable under the ITL clause. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the words 'in-transit loss' connoted loss 'incidental to the carriage of the cargo'. Further, even if the ITL clause had had the meaning for which the charterer contended, the Rules would apply to exempt the owner from liability. 

Costs – Order for costs. In a previous case, the claimants lost and they asserted that there should be no order for costs because the defendant had refused to engage in ADR. In response, the defendant sought an award of costs against the claimants on an indemnity basis. The Queen's Bench Division noted the defendant's failure to engage in ADR but held that such a shortcoming was not sufficient to disentitle it from claiming any costs. 

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. The claimant, a disabled man, sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's consultation on its proposal to cut its adult social care budget. He contended that the authority had failed to provide adequate information on whether there were alternatives to the authority's proposal. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, in the present case, fairness had not required consultation upon arguable yet discarded alternative options. 

Immigration – Education. The claimant college sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse its application for highly trusted sponsor status and to maintain that decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had not acted irrationally in her approach to the refusal rate of student visa applications, the enrolment rate or failure to report on unrolled students. 

Human rights – Right to life. The Administrative Court, held that the Lord Chancellor's Exceptional Funding Guidance (Inquests) was inadequate, incorporated an error of law and provided a materially misleading impression of what the law was. That was by virtue of the fact that there was no recognition that there was a category of case where the investigative duty under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights arose irrespective of the existence of an arguable breach by the state. Those errors could lead to erroneous decision being taken by caseworkers.