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. 

Human rights – Right to fair trial. The applicants complained that their lack of access to lawyers during their initial police questioning in 'safety interviews' and the admission of their statements at trial violated their right to a fair trial, under art 6(1) and (3) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights, in dismissing the application, held that there had been compelling reasons to restrict the applicants' access to legal advice and that, in the specific circumstances, no undue prejudice could be held to have been caused to their right, under art 6(1) of the Convention, to a fair trial. 

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. 

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). 

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that arts 49 and 56 TFEU had to be interpreted as meaning that they did not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provided that the provision of urgent and emergency ambulance services had to be entrusted on a preferential basis and awarded directly, without any advertising, to the voluntary associations covered by the agreements, in so far as the legal and contractual framework in which the activity of those associations was carried out actually contributed to the social purpose and the pursuit of the objectives of the good of the community and budgetary efficiency on which that legislation was based (see [65] of the judgment). 

Judgment – Default judgment. The claimant solicitor brought an action for an injunction to restrain the defendants from continuing allegedly harassing conduct by the publication of serious allegations on websites, including one known as 'solicitorsfromhell.co.uk'. The claimant obtained judgment in default of acknowledgement of service. The second defendant applied to set aside that judgment. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the application, held that, on the facts, it was just to exercise the court's discretion to set aside the default judgment and final injunction against the second defendant. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that arts 18(1)(d) and 22 of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 had to be interpreted as containing formal (not substantive) requirements relating to the right to deduct, failure to comply with which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, could not result in the loss of that right. 

Practice – Service out of the jurisdiction. The proceedings concerned the breakdown of relations around the ownership of a joint venture company, Spartan, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). The claimant was given permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction on Spartan and the first and second defendant companies, Kea and Harlaw. Kea and Harlaw challenged the grant of permission. The Chancery Division held that permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction would be set aside. 

Health authority – Negligence. The claimant dentist brought a claim against the defendant in negligence and/or breach of statutory duty, alleging that the defendant had unlawfully removed his name from the Hackney dental performers list and that he had suffered financial losses as a result. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that no duty of care had been owed to the claimant, either under the statute or at common law to protect him from economic loss and, if that was wrong, there had been no breach. 

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.