Latest Cases

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. A father applied for the return of his children to Ireland, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980. The mother, with whom they lived in the UK, objected on the ground that the father had allegedly been violent towards their nine-year-old son and she relied on his objection to being returned to Ireland. The Family Division, in dismissing the application, held that there were strong reasons to exercise the discretion not to order the return of the children to Ireland. 

Family proceedings – Disclosure of documents. In the course of divorce proceedings, the judge refused the appellant husband's application for a direction, addressed to the police, for a witness statement to be made available to him. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the husband's appeal, held that, in the circumstances, the judge had been entitled to have refused the order sought. 

European Union – Citizenship. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that Zambrano carers (see Zambrano v Office National de l'Emploi (ONEm)[2011] All ER (EC) 491), who were in need and unable to work were not entitled to the same level of assistance as was required by European Union law to be paid to EU citizens lawfully resident in the United Kingdom. The UK had to pay them such amount as would enable them to support themselves in order to be the carer for the EU citizen child within the EU, but subject to that, might determine to pay social assistance to them on some different basis. 

Sterilisation – Mentally handicapped person. The proceedings concerned DD, a 36-year-old woman with autistic spectrum disorder and mild to borderline leaning disability, who had six children all being raised by permanent substitute carers. The Court of Protection held that she lacked capacity to litigate, and to make the critical decision about contraception and sterilisation. Having weighed the relevant considerations, it held that laparoscopic sterilisation was in DD's best interests and authorised the applicants to undertake that procedure. It further permitted forcible entry into DD's home, and the withholding of the date of the procedure from her and her partner. 

Immigration – Refugee. The claimant non-Arab Dafuri sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to remove him to France as a safe third country, without considering his asylum claim. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the evidence relied upon on the claimant's behalf had not come close to rebutting the significant evidential presumption that France complied with its international obligations. Accordingly, the Secretary of State had been full entitled to conclude that there was no real risk of the claimant being refouled to Sudan by France in breach of his right to asylum and his right not to be subjected to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 

Customs and excise – Commissioners of customs and excise. The applicant company was investigated by the respondent Revenue and Customs Commissioners (the Revenue). The Revenue gave an undertaking to abide by freezing orders. The applicant brought proceedings, seeking an inquiry as to damages to be carried out on the undertaking. The Companies Court held that, on the evidence, none of the reasons adduced by the Revenue would make it inappropriate for the inquiry for damages to occur. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing him indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, whether a requirement amounted to a request for evidence or to the imposition of a criterion was context-sensitive. In the context of the present case, a request for formal documentation of the claimant's asserted work history fell clearly on the 'evidence' side of the line and he could not complain that the Secretary of State had not been satisfied that he had fulfilled the relevant criteria. 

Elections – European Parliament. The 1,015 applicant serving prisoners complained that they were prevented from voting in elections, relying on art 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (art 3). The European Court of Human Rights, in allowing the application, held that there had been a violation of art 3, given that the impugned legislation remained unamended after the court's decision in Greens v United Kingdom (Application No 60041/08) ([2010] All ER (D) 280 (Nov)), which had required amendment to render the electoral law compatible with the requirements of the Convention. 

Solicitor – Law Society. The Chancery Division held that the Law Society had the power to destroy old and redundant documents seized in connection with interventions in solicitors' practices, such power being justified as falling within the scope of para 16 of Pt II of Sch 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The claimant sought judicial review of decisions by the first two defendants, supported by the third defendant, that civil contemnors committed to prison were not entitled to have time spent on remand deducted from their sentence by the prison. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claim. The part of the claimant's case that was based purely on the domestic law, in particular, s 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and s 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, was rejected. The claimant's challenge under arts 5 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights was also rejected.