Latest Cases

Divorce – Financial proceedings. Following the divorce of the parties, the Family Division made orders as to the division of matrimonial property. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division allowed a father's application for the summary return to Hungary of his three children, aged six, five and three and accepted the father's contention that he had not consented to their permanent removal to England. 

Employment – Contract of service. The claimant brought proceedings against his former employers. The principal issues were whether, under his contract of employment, he had become, or had been entitled to become, a member of the first defendant company and, if so, on what terms as to profit share and capital interest. The Chancery Division made a number of rulings, but held that further submissions were required regarding the effects of s 4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2000 on the case. 

Claim form – Service. The claimant banking institution brought a claim against the defendant construction management company concerning advice provided to it on proposed lending opportunities. The issue was whether a deputy master had erred in holding that service of the claim form by email be amounted to good service, pursuant to CPR 6.15. The Chancery Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal, held that the deputy master had been wrong to conclude that, on the facts, there was a good reason to make an order under CPR 6.15. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The mother applied to the United Kingdom Courts for the recognition and enforcement of an order made by a Russian court granting her custody of SG. SG had not been heard by the Russian court prior to the making of the order. The Family Division held it was open to it to refuse the mother's application on the basis of art 32 of the Hague Convention 1996. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the appeals by the European Council and the European Commission requesting the court to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Stichting Natuur en Milieu and another (T‑338/08, EU:T:2012:300), by which it had annulled two Commission decisions, rejecting as inadmissible the applications lodged by Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe seeking to have the Commission review its Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing Annexes II, III and IV setting maximum residue levels for products covered by Annex I thereto. 

Town and country planning – Development. The appellant appealed against the decision of the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State, affirming the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development on the basis that he was deprived of the four year limitation period in s 171B(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 due to his deliberate concealment. The Planning Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the principle laid down in Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another ([2011] 4 All ER 851) had not been replaced by ss 171BA to 171BC of the Act and the inspector had not failed to apply that principle correctly. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal of further leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis that he had not been given the letter notifying him that his prior leave had been curtailed. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that merely to send a curtailment of leave letter to the person's address and rely on the receipt signed by another individual was manifestly insufficient to ensure that the written notice was 'given' to the person concerned. Accordingly, leave had not been validly curtailed and the application for further leave to remain ought to have been granted. 

Injunction – Mandatory injunction. The Commercial Court refused the claimant company's application for a final anti-suit injunction coupled with a mandatory injunction ordering the defendant company to discontinue proceedings issued in China. It held that, in the absence of sufficient evidence, the court could not have the necessary high degree of assurance that the defendant's submission would fail. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) allowed the appeal brought by the European Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament against a judgment of the General Court of the European Union in which the General Court had granted the application by a Netherlands environment association and another for annulment of a decision of the European Commission refusing to carry out internal review of a decision it had taken pursuant to art 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006. However, the Court decided that, in giving final judgment on the matter, although the appeal was well founded, neither of the pleas of the action lodged by the environment association and the other foundation were well founded and accordingly, their action would be dismissed.