Latest Cases

Environment – Protection. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed appeals by a wealthy businessman against his conviction for offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and against his sentence, namely a fine of £450,000 plus costs. The court held, among other things, that as the defendant had maintained his plea of guilty in the circumstances that he had, he had accepted in clear and unequivocal terms that he had caused the operations that resulted the damage. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The claimant acted as an adjudicator in a dispute. He found largely against the defendant company. The defendant refused to pay his fee and he brought proceedings against it. The Technology and Construction Court held that the claimant had acted within jurisdiction and in accordance with the rules of natural justice, and was entitled to the sum claimed. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The proceedings concerned the father's private law application in relation to his daughter. The judge had found that the English court had had jurisdiction to hear the proceedings in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility) (Brussels II Revised). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the mother's appeal. The judge's order declaring and ordering that the court had jurisdiction had to be set aside and, in its place, it was declared that, in accordance with Brussels II Revised, the English court did not have jurisdiction to determine the father's application. 

Administration of estates – Distribution. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust (the trust) against certain orders for costs made during the course of proceedings in respect of the administration of the estate of Jimmy Savile. Its appeal against various other orders was dismissed. 

Abortion – Participation in treatment. The petitioners were both experienced midwives employed by the employer health board. Both were practising Roman Catholics who objected to 'delegating, supervising and/or supporting staff to participate in and provide care to patients throughout the termination process'. The question was the meaning of the words 'to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection' as set out in s 4 of the Abortion Act 1967. The Supreme Court held that it was unlikely that, in enacting the conscience clause, Parliament had in mind the host of ancillary, administrative and managerial tasks that might be associated with those acts. 

European Union – Treaty provisions. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the application by the European Commission for a declaration that by retroactively curtailing the right of taxpayers to recover tax which had been levied contrary to European Union law as set out in s 107 of the Finance Act 2007, the United Kingdom had failed to comply with its obligations under art 4(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

Prison – Prison conditions. Both claimants were serving prisoners who had been separated from their long-term partners in prison following a series of decisions. The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant's applications for judicial review of those decisions and held that the decisions had been 'in accordance with the law' within the meaning of art 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, proportionate and had complied with the procedural obligations inherent in art 8. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The mother appealed against a care order in respect of her daughter, granted under s 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, authorising the local authority to place her for adoption. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that it was difficult to consider that any other conclusion had been open to the judge on the evidence. The court also commented on the application of Re B-S (Children) (Adoption Order: Leave to Oppose) ([2013] All ER (D) 145 (Sep)). 

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. H was made bankrupt. His assets on the date of the bankruptcy included four pension policies. H did not wish to crystallise the policies and, without crystallisation, the precise value of the policies could not be determined. The applicant trustee in bankruptcy applied to the court, effectively seeking that H be ordered to crystallise his policies and to exercise his elections in a manner desired by the trustee. The Chancery Division held that there was no power to require H to elect in any particular way. The application would be dismissed. 

Child – Protection. The court was concerned with a vulnerable young person, AB, who was 17 years old and whom it was asserted by the local authority that she was the victim of child sexual exploitation by, at least, ten much older men. The authority applied for civil injunctions under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of the men. The Family Division granted the injunctions as requested and the reporting restrictions order in respect of each respondent were discharged.