Latest Cases

Coroner – Inquest. The claimant sought an order quashing the original inquest into her father's suicide in prison and directing the holding of a fresh one. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the fact that the claimant had not been notified of the inquest did not vitiate the proceedings. Further, the scope of the coroner's inquiry had been sufficiently full, in particular, with respect to the management of the risk of suicide. The authorities did not support the contention that independent psychiatric evidence had to be called in every case of suicide in prison where there might be a mental health issue. 

Tort – Harassment. The claimants brought an action for harassment against the defendants and sought an injunction restraining them from further harassing behaviour. The Queen's Bench Division applying established law found that the claimants had made out their case for an injunction to restrain the third defendant from harassing them and the injunction would be granted in substantially the terms sought. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled, inter alia, that the second sentence of art 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community) should be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the final price to be paid had to be indicated whenever the prices of air services were shown, including when they were shown for the first time. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The proceedings concerned the abduction of two boys, who, in 2012, were taken to Russia by their father and were only returned to the care of their mother in June 2014, after strenuous efforts by the English and Russian authorities. The father sought to resume contact with the boys and their younger brother. A fact-finding hearing was convened. The Family Division made findings as to the events between 2012 and 2014 and concluded that the father's expressions of regret were not genuine. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve the remaining four months and 13 days of a six-month sentence for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the appellant had not served his sentence by virtue of being on a six-hour tag curfew. However, it would be disproportionate to return him, particularly given the amount of time outstanding. 

Divorce – Appeal. Post divorce, the husband had refused an open offer of settlement from the wife. As a result, the judge in effect dismissed his application for financial remedy. The husband sought permission to appeal and that was refused on the basis that his appeal had no reasonable prospect of success. 

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. 

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

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. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The patient had learning difficulties and was on the autistic spectrum. He lacked capacity. He required an operation to treat cancer, which he did not want to undergo. The relevant NHS Trust sought an order that it was in his best interests for the surgery to take place. The Court of Protection held that it was overwhelmingly in the best interests of the patient to undergo the surgery.