Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The proceedings concerned the mother's appeal against a decision about her contact with her children and the imposition of a restriction order, under s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989, on her making further applications in relation to the children for two years. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge's omission to set out his conclusions about the contact centre material in his judgment was fatal to his decision. 

Criminal law – Offensive weapons. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal against conviction by an appellant who was found guilty of having a bladed article, namely two knives, with him in a public place, without reasonable excuse, the court held that where lack of knowledge of the offending item was proffered as an excuse by an accused person in evidence, as in this case, it was almost inevitable that an appropriate direction should be given that the jury might find such an excuse to exist, however the sheriff had made no mention of the defence of reasonable excuse in his charge to the jury. 

Divorce – Ancillary relief. The parties (H and W) were granted a decree nisi following a long marriage. In due course, the judge made an ancillary relief order dealing with the financial affairs of the parties. The judge made a costs order against H. H appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, modified the ancillary relief order to a limited extent, but found that the costs order reflected the judge's findings to the H's attitude to W's claims. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The proceedings concerned renewed applications for permission to appeal against decisions of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissing the applicants' appeals against the refusal of their application for variations of their existing leave to remain as Tier-1 (Post-Study Work) Migrants. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in refusing the applications, held, inter alia, that, in the circumstances, it was not arguable that the applicants had had a legitimate expectation that, after 6 April, their applications would be determined in accordance with the former policy. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Directive (EEC) 85/374 (on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products), as amended, should be interpreted as not precluding national legislation — such as that at issue in the main proceedings, establishing a special liability system for the purposes of art 13 of that directive — under which, in consequence of an amendment to that legislation made after the directive had been notified to the member state concerned, the consumer had the right to require the manufacturer of the medicinal product to provide him with information on the adverse effects of that product. 

Child – Abduction. The mother and father of two children had divorced and the mother had taken the children from Hungary, where they had lived, to the United Kingdom. The father made an application, under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980, for the children's summary return to Hungary. The Family Division held that there had been a wrongful removal of the children and that the mother had not succeeded in establishing any of her defences. Accordingly, the children would be returned to Hungary. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of outline planning permission for the development of up to 400 dwellings and full planning permission for the change of use from agricultural land to use as a suitable alternative natural greenspace. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that, reading the officer report as a whole and in the context of oral advice given to members, it could not be said that the members had been significantly misled by the advice given to them. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision refusing him leave to remain in the United Kingdom and refusing to treat his representations as a fresh claim. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had failed to treat her failure to grant the claimant discretionary leave to remain as any kind of disadvantage and to consider the relevance of the claimant having been removed on the basis of her own misstatement of fact. Although her decision would be quashed, she would not be ordered to facilitate the claimant's return to the UK. 

Marriage – Validity. The parties were parents to two children. The petitioner wife was a Sunni Muslim, whereas the respondent husband was a member of the Ahmahdi faith. At the time of the celebration of their marriage in Lahore in September 2005, both parties were resident and, it appeared, domiciled in Pakistan. The petitioner sought a declaration pursuant to s 55(1)(a) and (b) of the Family Law Act 1986 to the effect that the marriage was at its inception a valid marriage and that it subsisted as such on 18 March 2013, being the date upon which her current divorce petition had been issued. The Family Division held that the marriage had indeed been valid. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Chancery Division sanctions schemes of arrangement in respect of the Apcoa group, a leading pan European car park operator.