Latest Cases

Divorce – Costs. Following the divorce of a very wealthy couple, the wife petitioned for financial remedy orders. The husband sought a departure from equality in terms of the share of the wealth that the wife should receive at the end of the marriage, due to the alleged fact that a lot of the personal wealth represented post-separation accrual. The Family Division held that the husband had indeed been personally responsible for a lot of post-separation accrual of wealth and the award was to reflect that fact. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The child born of British and Polish parents. The issue arose however of whether the court should exercise its power under art 15 of the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980 and Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (Brussels II Revised) to transfer the case to Poland. It was conceded that the first question arising under art 15 had been satisifey. In relation to the other two questions under art 15, the Family Division held that all three questions arising under art 15 had to be answered in the affirmative. The court would therefore request the Polish court, to assume jurisdiction in accordance with art 15(5) of Brussels II Revised. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant local authority to grant planning permission and conservation area consent to redevelop a site within a conservation area. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the planning officer's report had not applied the statutory presumption against the grant of permission in conservation area cases, laid down by s 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 

European Union – Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that the second indent of art 3(2) of Directive (EC) 95/46 (on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data) should be interpreted as meaning that the operation of a camera system, as a result of which a video recording of people was stored on a continuous recording device such as a hard disk drive, installed by an individual on his family home for the purposes of protecting the property, health and life of the home owners, but which also monitored a public space, did not amount to the processing of data in the course of a purely personal or household activity, for the purposes of that provision. 

Practice – Jurisdiction. The Divisional Court had dismissed claims for judicial review, by which the claimants had challenged a decision of the Central Criminal Court to accept jurisdiction to determine a claim by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners, pursuant to s 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the underlying proceedings challenged in the Divisional Court had been a criminal matter. Consequently, the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from its order. The claimants had to make their application to the Divisional Court and, if successful, pursue their appeal in the Supreme Court. 

Costs – Third party. The applicants' convictions for summary offences, pursuant to s 297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, were quashed and they sought a third party costs order against the second interested party, the Football Association Premier League (FAPL). The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the there was nothing exceptional about the case and it should remain subject to the criminal costs regime. Although FAPL stood to benefit financially from a successful prosecution, a broader consideration did not suggest that a third party costs order would be just in all the circumstances. 

Practice – Appeal. Three cases were heard together to enable the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, to give guidance on the approach that should be taken to applications for extensions of time for filing a notice of appeal. The court held that the principles to be derived from Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2014] 2 All ER 430) and Denton and others v TH White Ltd and another; Decadent Vapours Ltd v Bevan and others; Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies and others ([2014] All ER (D) 53 (Jul)) applied to applications for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Consideration was given to public law cases, and cases involving a shortage of funds and litigants in person. 

Legal aid – Entitlement. The claimants had been refused civil legal aid funding in cases that involved immigration issues. Their judicial review challenges had been successful. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had erred in his interpretation of when exceptional case funding was required by s 10(3)(a) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. It further affirmed the judge's conclusions that the second defendant Lord Chancellor's Exceptional Funding Guidance (Non-Inquests) was not compatible with arts 6(1) and, in immigration cases, art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, nor was it compatible with art 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 

Human rights – Right to respect for family and private life. Following revelations by Edward Snowden, the claimants asserted their belief that investigation of the respondents would show that their privacy had been unlawfully invaded. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal held that the law gave individuals an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which and the conditions upon which the intelligence services were entitled to resort to interception or to make use of intercept. Accordingly, as of the date of judgment, there was no contravention of arts 8 or 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Negligence – Causation. During the course of his working life, the deceased was exposed to asbestos. He died of lung cancer and claims were brought against six defendants. The parties agreed that the deceased's exposure to asbestos over the course of his working life could be quantified and that the total exposed 'share' of the defendants was 35.2%. The issue was whether each defendant was liable in damages in full or for only a portion of the damages. The Queen's Bench Division, in ordering apportionment, rejected the claimant's submission that the common law had recognised an intermediate category of case which fell between the conventional approach and the principle in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd ([2002] 3 All ER 305).