Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Practice – Striking out. The proceedings concerned case management decisions made during the course of litigation, which arose out of the termination of a joint venture agreement. By two orders, the judge dismissed the defendant's applications that the claim be struck out for, among other things, failure to comply with the timetable laid down by an earlier order in respect of disclosure, service of a schedule of account, and exchange of witness statements. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeals, held that the judge had approached the issues before him correctly and had been entitled to dismiss the defendant's applications for strike out. 

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. 

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). 

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. 

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. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The mother of two girls had fled the family home with the children and residence orders had subsequently been made in her favour. The father applied for direct contact with the children. A fact-finding hearing led to the conclusion that the mother was in genuine fear of the father and that he had threatened to kill her. Assessments had placed her as being at high risk of 'honour' based violence. The original CAFCASS officer had recommended against direct contact between the father and children. The second officer recommended direct contact. The judge dismissed the father's application. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been entitled to disagree with the recommendation of the second officer and had given reasons for his conclusion. Further, the judge had had in mind all the factors that had fallen to be balanced. 

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. 

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.