Latest Cases

Criminal law – Grievous bodily harm. The defendant had been convicted of violent disorder (count 1), manslaughter (count 2) and wounding with intent pursuant to s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (count 4), following a violent attack by a group of youths, in which a man was seriously injured and his son was killed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against conviction on count 4 and substituted it for a conviction for unlawful wounding pursuant to s 20 of the Act. His sentence for the s 18 offence was quashed and substituted for a sentence of four-and-a half years' detention in respect of the s 20 offence. 

Immigration – Appeal. The claimant Pakistani national had extended leave to remain as a student before it was discovered that his test score had been cancelled as invalid due to evidence of fraud. The defendant Secretary of State refused his application for leave to remain and set directions for his removal. The claimant renewed his application for permission to challenge the Secretary of State's decision to remove him. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in refusing permission, rejected the claimant's arguments that he had in-country right of appeal. 

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division struck out part of the claimant solicitors' firm's claim for unpaid fees and costs on the basis that it had been guilty of abuse of process in reliance on deliberately exaggerated fees, fabricated documents and on a bill of costs which had been drawn up knowing it to be inaccurate. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. A was born in the jurisdiction of England and Wales in 2013 of unmarried Romanian parents. After his birth he was removed into care. There was an application before the court for the transfer of the case to Romania pursuant to art 15 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 of 27. The Family Division held that the balance lay overwhelmingly in favour of the case being a Romanian case, both in respect of Romania being better placed and the child's best interests. 

Landlord and tenant – Licence to occupy premises. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the occupier of a mobile home against a decision of the Court of Appeal that a letter sent to the occupier by the owner of a residential site on which the occupier had stationed his mobile home, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, amounted to a notice that met the requirements of para 4 of Sch 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 with the result that it had been reasonable to terminate that agreement following the occupier's anti-social activities. 

Contract – Rescission. Leipzig municipal water company (KWL) sold credit protection to the investment bank (UBS) and to two other banks (LBBW and Depfa) on four portfolios of investment grade bonds and other securities. It did so by means of a series of derivative products known as single tranche collateralised debt obligations (STCDOs). Defaults occurred following the global financial crisis of 2008-9, and UBS, LBBW and Depfa sought payment of sums due under the STCDOs. The Commercial Court made rulings concerning, among other things, the availability of rescission to the parties. 

European Union – State aids. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by Vtesse Networks Ltd, established in the United Kingdom, for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 3204 of 12 May 2010 declaring the aid measure 'Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Next Generation Broadband, compatible with art 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

Family proceedings – Evidence. The local authority's application for care orders in respect of three children had been dismissed. The judge found that it was in the children's best interests to continue living with the father and that there was no real prospect of the father permitting the mother's destabilising influence to return to the family home. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the authority's appeal. The judge had not fully engaged with the detail of the evidence regarding the father's inability to recognise and provide for the children's emotional needs. Having not engaged with all the detail of the professional witnesses, the decision would be set aside and the matter remitted. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The proceedings concerned a father's appeal against an order which prevented contact with his child until her eighteenth birthday and which stated requirements in order for the father to succeed in an application for permission to apply to the court for a further order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal to the limited extent that the word 'must', preceding the requirements as set out by the judge in order for the father to apply to the court, should be changed to 'should'. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In the context of care proceedings relating to four children. The issue of habitual residence and jurisdiction of the English court arose. The Family Division held that it could not determine Tr's or Ty's habitual residence, nevertheless as both children were present in the jurisdiction and had been since the courts had been seised of the case therefore the court had jurisdiction for public law proceedings under art 13 of Council Regulation 2201/2003.