Latest Cases

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by the Pilkington group of companies for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 relating to a proceeding pursuant to art 81 [EC] and art 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement, as amended, in so far as it concerned the Pilkington group, and also, in the alternative, for annulment of art 2 of that decision in that it had imposed a fine on the group or, in the further alternative, application for reduction of that fine. 

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. 

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)). 

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. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant had sustained a severe brain injury when he was 11 years of age. Liability was apportioned 30:70. The issue of quantum was to be decided. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant's condition had resulted from the organic brain injury, and could only reasonably be treated by a regime of 24-hour personalised care. He was to be awarded damages under the various usual heads of damage on that basis. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant bank obtained a worldwide freezing order against the defendant, regarding proceedings in Ukraine. The Ukrainian court found for the defendant and dismissed the claimant's appeals. The claimant applied to continue the freezing order. The Commercial Court held that the claimant could not show that it had a good arguable case against the defendant, and discharged the freezing order. 

Extradition – Extradition order. Three appeals against extradition to Poland were heard together because they raised, for the first time in the Divisional Court, common issues as to the compatibility of extradition with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and the proportionality of extradition that arose under s 21A(1)(a) and (b) of the Extradition Act 2003. Having given extensive guidance on s 21A of the Act, the court held that the appellants' extradition was not incompatible with their rights under art 8 of the Convention and was proportionate within the meaning of s 21A(1)(b) of the Act. 

Sentence – Notification and orders. Following conviction for sexual offences, the claimant was obliged to comply with the notification requirements of Pt 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for life. On several occasions following M's release from prison, the police visited his house informally. It was said that M did not truly consent to their entry because his will was overborne by the knowledge that, if he refused them entry, they would be able to obtain a warrant, under s 96B of the Act. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, inter alia, that the practice of making unannounced visits to offenders' homes seeking entry by consent was proportionate and did not involve an unlawful interference with their rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Company – Winding-up. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills presented a petition for the winding up of a company in the public interest. The main issue was whether the court should dispense with advertisement of the petition, accelerate the hearing of the petition and grant the winding up order on the day of the hearing. The Chancery Division, held that, in circumstances where the petition was in the public interest, it was entirely appropriate for the court to dispense with advertisement of the petition. The shareholders of the company would not be prejudiced by accelerating the hearing of the petition and, on the facts, the case was one where the company should be wound up in the public interest.