Latest Cases

Contempt of court – Committal. The claimant bank applied to commit the first defendant to prison for contempt for breaching two worldwide freezing orders. The Commercial Court found that the first defendant had failed to provide disclosure of his assets and had knowingly assisted companies' failure to provide disclosure of their assets. However, the other three grounds of alleged contempt were rejected, as the claimant had not established breach of the orders to the criminal standard. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The proceedings concerned the question of where an adult, SW, who lacked capacity, was habitually resident, for the purposes of determining whether the English court had jurisdiction to deal with applications under the Metal Capacity Act 2005. The Court of Protection held that the definition of 'habitual residence' under the Act should be the same as that applied in other family law instruments, including Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003, and SW had been habitually resident in England for purposes of the Act. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The appeal arose out of private law proceedings between the father and the mother in relation to their two children, BF and CF. The judge dismissed the father's applications for a residence order in respect of CF and for direct contact with both CF and BF. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the father's appeal, held, inter alia, that the judge had been well aware that the father had, to some extent, been marginalised by some of the professionals and it was clear that she had factored that into her assessment of his case. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The issue before the Planning Court was whether an obligation imposed by an agreement under s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 entered into by the claimant had survived a second grant of planning permission identical to the first, save for that obligation. The court held that, as a matter of law, the developer had been able to elect to continue and complete the development under the second planning permission, rather than the first planning permission. Further, it had, in fact, elected to continue and complete the development under the second planning permission. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The Fitness to Practise Panel (the FPP) of the respondent General Medical Council found that the appellant psychiatrist had given evidence outside his professional competence and had failed to explain the reasons for his opinion. The appellant appealed against those findings and the suspension of his registration for a period of three months. The Administrative Court held that the FPP's findings that the allegations against the appellant had been proved had been correct. However, the FPP had not explained why the imposition of a condition on the appellant's registration had not been a sufficient sanction, resulting in a disproportionate sanction. 

Practice – Personal injuries action. The claimant was born prematurely at the defendant hospital. She brought a claim for personal injury. The hospital admitted that delivery had been delayed by around 25 minutes due to fault in its systems. However, it was the hospital's case that none of the time differences had any impact on the outcome and that the claimant suffered. The Queen's Bench Division held that the evidence had not established to the requisite standard of a balance of probabilities that the delay in the claimant's delivery had resulted in her injuries. 

Local authority – Land. The claimants challenged the defendant Secretary of State's decision to consent to the local authority's decision to appropriate their allotments. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there had been an established, objectively verifiable fact, that had existed at the time of decision, material to the decision, but not known to the Secretary of State as a result of a mistake for which the claimants had not been responsible. The decision had been based on a clear consideration that there had been no changes of materiality since the application had been made. Accordingly, the decision had not been in accordance with law. 

Extradition – European arrest warrant. The claimant sought permission to bring a claim for judicial review of a proposed decision by the government to give notice to the European Council that the United Kingdom wished to participate in the Council Framework Decision (JHA) 2002/584. The Divisional Court, in refusing permission, held that the claimant's contention that the government could not give such notice without first holding a referendum was not arguable and that the alleged promises that there would be a vote in Parliament before such notice were not capable of giving rise to an enforceable legitimate expectation. 

Serious Fraud Office – Investigation. The judge dismissed a single charge of conspiracy to defraud contrary to common law in relation to the local mining authorities on the basis that the prosecution had repeatedly changed its stance and therefore the respondent could not know the case they had to meet. The prosecution sought a voluntary bill of indictment. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application on the basis that the judge had not erred in law and it was not in the interests of justice to allow the application. 

Police – Disclosure of information. The claimant doctor sought judicial review of the defendant Metropolitan Police Service's (the MPS) decision that unlawfully obtained material should be provided to the General Medical Council. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the MPS had erred by failing to carry out the careful balancing exercise of competing interests required by art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the fact that the material had been obtained unlawfully did not outweigh the legitimate aim served by its disclosure and the claimant's rights under art 8 of the Convention had not been violated.