Latest Cases

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. 

Divorce – Financial provision. A wife began proceedings for divorce and a financial remedy order. She suspected that her husband had property in Jordan and asked him for disclosure. He denied the allegation and a consent order on financial provision was granted. The wife discovered later that the husband did have property in Jordan. She applied for permission to appeal against a consent order. The Family Division, in allowing the application, held that, whilst non-disclosure did not mean that a consent order previously granted should be set aside, in the present case, there was evidence of potentially significant non-disclosure and the wife's appeal had a realistic prospect of success. 

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 Lithuania to serve the balance of a sentence amounting to three years and nine months imposed for offences committed between April 2003 and July 2007. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, on all the facts, notwithstanding the seriousness of the original offending, now fairly ancient, and bearing in mind that the appellant had already served approximately 14 months' imprisonment, it would be disproportionate in all the circumstances to return him, in particular, having regard to his daughter's very rare congenital heart disease. 

Account – Action for. The proceedings concerned an action brought by the claimants, seeking an account and associated enquiries against their former solicitor, the defendant. The Chancery Division held that the claim for an account in respect of any period before 1 August 1998 failed. However, there should be an account of all sums received by or to the order of the defendant from or at the direction of the claimant from 1 August 1998 and, further, an order that the defendant pay to the first claimant compensation for breach of duty in procuring the unauthorised payment of a sum to a third party. 

Proceeds of crime – Unlawful conduct. Following frauds committed by the defendant, the Chancery Division made rulings on whether and how the lead claimants would be able to recover sums paid to him. 

Heritable property – Title conditions – Real burden. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in an action for declarator, the court agreed with the Lord Ordinary that a clause in a minute of agreement relating to subjects on which the pursuers wished to construct an office development did constitute a valid and enforceable real burden in terms of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 and that the restriction in the clause related to construction and not merely to letting. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing him leave to remain as an unmarried partner of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the substance of the Secretary of State's letter to 'endeavour to issue a response to you within 14 days' was not one of a promise from which it would be unconscionable on the part of the Secretary of State to resile. Further, the Secretary of State had not, by her letter, indicated that a full review would necessarily take place. 

Criminal law – Direction to jury. The defendant appealed against his convictions for indecency with a child, indecent assault and rape, and the sentences, totalling 13 years' imprisonment, imposed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the judge's summing up, particularly concerning the defendant's character, had not in any way rendered the convictions unsafe. However, the sentences on the indecency counts had been unlawful because there had been a statutory maximum of two years' imprisonment. The sentences of five years' imprisonment for the indecency offences would be quashed and substituted by concurrent sentences of two years' imprisonment, which would not alter the overall total sentence. 

Practice – Stay of proceedings. The petitioner brought a petition for relief in respect of Fenox (UK) Ltd, of which it was a 50% shareholder. The third respondent, with the support of the second respondent, applied for the proceedings to be stayed, pending determination of a wider partnership dispute by arbitration. The Companies Court held that, without a compelling reason to order a stay, it would decline to do so.