Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. B was five. Her mother was of Swedish background, while the father was English. The parents separated, and the mother sought permission to permanently relocate B to Sweden. The Family Division held that, in the circumstances, it was in B's interests for her to live in Sweden, and made orders for contact with her father accordingly. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellant's claim for asylum from Eritrea had been refused and her appeals to the First-tier and Upper Tribunals (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had been dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing her appeal, held that in the circumstances, there had been no error of law on the part of the First-tier Tribunal and no error of law by the Upper Tribunal in its analysis of the First-tier's reasoning. 

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. 

Sentence – Custodial sentence. Following the quashing of his indeterminate sentence, the claimant claimed for damages on the grounds that his detention after the expiry of the minimum term had been unlawful and was incompatible with art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claim, held that an appeal decision quashing a sentence did not render detention pursuant to that sentence unlawful within art 5(1) of the Convention. Further, as arbitrariness was predicated on unlawfulness, the claimant could not succeed in relation to the sentence. 

Damages – Personal injury. The defendant's car struck the claimant's vehicle from behind when the claimant was stationary at traffic lights. Liability was conceded but the parties were fundamentally at odds on the issue of quantum. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant had proved that his symptoms had been caused by a brain injury and not by psychological cause and it was on that basis that the various heads of damages would be assessed. 

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. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by Si.mobil telekomunikacijske storitve d.d. (Si.mobil) for annulment of Commission decision C(20110 355 final rejecting Si.mobil's complaint concerning infringements of art 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union allegedly committed by Mobitel, telekomunikacijske storitve d.d. on a number of wholesale and retail mobile telephone markets.