Latest Cases

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 76(2) of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71, as amended, had to be interpreted as authorising the member state of employment to provide in its legislation for suspension by the competent institution of entitlement to family benefits when no application had been made for family benefits in the member state of residence. In such circumstances, if the member state of employment provided for such suspension of entitlement to family benefits in its national legislation, the competent institution was bound to apply that suspension in accordance with art 76(2) of that Regulation, provided that the conditions for the application of that legislation were met, and had no discretion in that regard. 

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. 

Practice – Civil restraint order. Since 2008, the claimant serving prisoner had commenced 13 separate unmeritorious judicial review claims and six separate private civil claims on a range of subjects concerning his imprisonment. He applied to discharge an extended civil restraint order (ECRO) made against him and the Secretary of State applied for the ECRO to be converted into a general civil restraint order (GCRO). The Administrative Court held that, as the claimant was not obsessed with one theme, but several themes concerning his imprisonment, an ECRO was unlikely to be effective. Accordingly, the appropriate and proportionate response was to make a GCRO. 

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. 

Costs – Indemnity. The claimant had issued proceedings, to which the third defendant (GT) had issued a counterclaim by way of set off. The claimant discontinued its proceedings and it fell to the court to determine the matters on the counterclaim. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of the contractual documents that the parties had entered into, GT was entitled to an indemnity for its costs in defending the proceedings and bringing its counterclaim, provided that such costs were reasonable costs reasonably incurred. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.