Latest Cases

European Union – Access to information. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 54 of Directive (EC) 2004/39 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on markets in financial instruments), as amending certain directives and repealing one other. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr and Mrs Altmann and others and the Federal Office for the Supervision of Financial Services, concerning the latter's decision to refuse access to certain documents and information regarding Phoenix Kapitaldienst GmbH Gesellschaft für die Durchführung und Vermittlung von Vermögensanlagen. 

Court of Appeal – Practice. Five renewed applications for permission to appeal were considered by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. The court held that each of the applications was unmeritorious, and made a loss of time order in each case. The court gave guidance on the circumstances in which a loss of time order should be made. 

European Union – Access to information. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by the applicant Mr Ionnis Ntouvas for annulment of the decision of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) refusing the applicant access to the final audit reports carried out on the ECDC by the Internal Audit Service of the European Commission. 

Minor – Abduction. The present proceedings concerned an application by a father for the summary return of his son to Australia following the parents' separation. The Family Division, in allowing the application, held amongst other things that it was not possible to conclude that there was a strength, conviction and rationality that could be said to amount to an objection sufficient to satisfy the exception in art 13B of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 4 and 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and arts 13, 22, 23 and 30 of Directive (EC) 2008/50 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe). The request had been made in proceedings between ClientEarth, a non‑governmental organisation interested in protection of the environment, and the United Kingdom Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, concerning that organisation's request for revision of the air quality plans drawn up by the UK under Directive 2008/50 for certain of its zones and agglomerations. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The local authority care plan in respect of a child had included an option for adoption and, if not achieved within six months, a dual track approach of pursuing adoption and long term fostering arrangements. The judge granted a placement order and the mother appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that it was not necessary for an authority to have a contingency in a care plan, although it was desirable and that an authority was not precluded from adopting a dual planning approach in an appropriate case. They also clarified that the phrase 'nothing else will do' was the conclusion of a proportionality evaluation after a process of deductive reasoning and not a new presumption or standard of proof. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The parents of the child abducted her to Spain. Proceedings were commenced to secure the child's return to the jurisdiction, which involved contempt hearings, at which the maternal grandparents and the paternal grandmother were present. The child was returned to the United Kingdom where she was placed in foster care. The local authority sought findings of satisfaction of the threshold criteria of s 31(2) of the Children Act 1989, they also sough additional findings against the parents and the grandparents. The Family Division made certain findings of fact but declined to make a final care or placement order. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following an earlier judgment in which the Commercial Court had upheld the claimant companies' claim for business Interruption losses and interest, the court held that, although the claimants had been the successful parties, they would be denied any costs from a period of 21 days after a CPR pt 36 offer to settle had been made on behalf of the defendant. Further, the defendant was entitled to its costs on a standard basis from that date. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that where a person, often elderly, who was both physically and mentally disabled to a severe extent, was being looked after in her own home, and where the arrangements happen to be made, and paid for, by a local authority, rather than by the person's own family and paid for from her own funds, or from funds provided by members of her family, art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights was simply not engaged as there was no deprivation of liberty. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Yemeni national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to grant her leave to remain, but prohibiting her from having recourse to public funds. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in imposing the condition, as it had been made pursuant to a rule that had been unlawful, as it had not been laid before Parliament. Further, the Secretary of State had failed to comply with the public sector equality duty and had given inadequate reasons with respect to the claimant's disability.