Latest Cases

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Directive (EEC) 80/987 (relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer), as amended. The request had been made in proceedings between the applicant and the Netherlands Management Board of the Employee Insurance Schemes Implementing Body concerning the latter's refusal to pay the applicant an insolvency benefit on the ground that he was a third-country national who was not legally resident in the Netherlands. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. In a case where the mother and father and child, M, moved to Israel, the court had to decide on M's place of habitual residence. The Family Division held that it was plain to see that M was unable to settle and integrate into Israeli life and it would be wholly inimical to M's best interest to return to Israel. 

Company – Winding up. The Supreme Court of Bermuda made an order winding up a company, SICL. SICL's former auditors, PwC, applied for the order to be lifted. The liquidators of SCIL challenged, among other things, PwC's entitlement to do so. The Privy Council allowed PwC's application, and held that, among other things, since PwC had the right to be added as a party to the petition, it followed that, unless there were good reasons to the contrary, it was entitled to raise the question whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to make the winding up order, but also to raise the issue on appeal. 

Town and country planning – Development consent. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing an appeal in respect of the proposed redevelopment of a site on the seafront at Margate, found that the Secretary of State had not unlawfully failed to consider the cumulative effects of the proposed development with the effects of the redevelopment of an adjacent site. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority. The Chancery Division gave directions relating to the distribution of sums to depositors, on an application by the Financial Conduct Authority pursuant to s 382 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, in respect of a tiered Ponzi scheme. The court gave guidance on how the discretion was to be exercised. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. Since April 2014, two Czech children had been subject to care proceedings in the United Kingdom. The issue before the Family Court was whether to request the appropriate district court in the Czech Republic to assume jurisdiction in relation to the children. Having considered art 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility), the Family Court concluded that the children had a particular connection with the Czech Republic, that the district court in the Czech Republic would be better placed to hear the case and that the transfer was in the best interests of the children. 

Deed – Construction. The proceedings related to a collection of books, photographs and the like owned by the Warburg family. The collection was given to the first claimant university, and a trust deed was made regarding the care of the collection. The claimants brought a construction claim regarding the interpretation of the deed. The Chancery Division made a number of findings of fact as to its construction. 

Landlord and tenant – Leases from year to year – Notice of termination – Period of notice required to prevent tacit relocation. Court of Session: In an action by the landlords of urban lands in Glasgow the court held that in order to prevent tacit relocation a tenant of lands exceeding 2 acres in extent which were let from year to year (including lands occupied by tacit relocation) did not require to give not less than 6 months' notice of termination; not less than 40 days' notice of termination by a tenant would suffice for that purpose. 

Claim form – Service. The claimant was a publicly-listed (NASDAQ) shipping company, which owned and operated a fleet of tankers. It brought a claim against the defendant Korean company for damages for alleged repudiation of an option agreement. The defendant applied under CPR 11, challenging the jurisdiction of the English court to hear the claim. The Commercial Court, dismissing the defendant's application, held that service at the London address of the person entered in the register of companies as authorised to accept service on behalf of the defendant had been valid service under s 1139(2)(b) of the Companies Act 2006 and/or CPR 6.9(2). 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The patient was born in 1927 She had five children. namely JG, her eldest daughter, RS, who was born in 1950. Her middle daughter, KH and her younger son, MG. Her youngest daughter, DG, was born in 1964. The patient had Alzheimer's type dementia. DG and RS applied to be appointed jointly as her deputies for property and affairs. JG opposed the application on the basis that it was not in the patient's best interests but had been made maliciously. The Court of Protection held that he court was satisfied that it would be in the patient's best interests to appoint the applicants as her joint deputies.