Latest Cases

Family provision – Order. The Family Division ruled that the husband should make payments to his wife, including maintenance payments. The wife brought a judgment summons against him, submitting that he had failed to make the payments as required. The Family Division held that, the wife's case was made out, and a sentence of four weeks' imprisonment would be imposed, suspended for three months on condition that the husband paid the sum of £360,200 within that period. 

Family proceedings – Child. The proceedings concerned a child in respect of whom care proceedings were brought by the local authority. The whereabouts of her mother, who was Albanian, and her father were unknown. The Family Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case as the child was habitually resident in England. 

Housing – Homeless person. The appellant became homeless after having become unable to afford the rent on her property in Westminster. The local authority offered the appellant temporary accommodation in Bletchley, which the appellant refused. The reviewing officer upheld the authority's decision and the county court dismissed the appellant's appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the authority had not breached its obligations under s 208 of the Housing Act 1996 and the decision had not been unlawful. The authority had been entitled to take a broad range of factors into account in deciding whether it had been reasonably practicable to provide accommodation to the appellant within its own district. 

Sentence – Reduction. The claimant had been in custody on remand for a period exceeding the sentence imposed for handling stolen goods. He sought judicial review of his subsequent recall to prison for breach of his licence. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that, on the proper construction of s 240ZA(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, it allowed time on remand to be counted only against time spent in custody, but it could not be credited to reduce time spent on licence. Further, the claimant's rights under art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been breached. 

Practice – Public procurement. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant Cabinet Office, in respect of an unsuccessful bid concerning a public procurement project. The claimant sought early disclosure of specific documents relating to the tendering process. The Technology and Construction Court adjourned the application as being premature where it had been made before the defendant's grounds for seeking to lift a statutory suspension on the placing of the contract with the successful bidder had been spelled out and before the defendant had served its defence. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Kosovan national challenged the validity of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to remove him, but only grant an out-of-country right of appeal, to refuse leave to remain and indefinite leave to remain, and not to apply para 395C of the Immigration Rules. The Administrative Court held that three of the claimant's grounds were without merit. His other ground was resolved by the Secretary of State's undertaking that, if a decision to remove was to be taken, the claim would not be certified as ill-founded so as to deprive the claimant of an in-country right of appeal. 

European Union – State aids. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal brought by British Telecommunications plc (BT) against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union which had dismissed the actions brought by BT and by BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd for annulment of Commission Decision (EC) 2009/703 concerning the state aid implemented by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, declaring that the aid granted to BT by the UK authorities in the form of an exemption, granted to that company's pension fund, from the obligation to pay a contribution to a pension protection fund in respect of persons employed by BT before its privatisation constituted state aid which was incompatible with the common market. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Family Division found N guilty of some, but not all, the alleged contempts of court. The local authority then made a second application, which sought N's committal to prison for further alleged contempts (the second application). The court deferred the sentencing of N until the authority decided whether to pursue the second application. The authority subsequently sought permission to discontinue the second application. The court granted the authority permission to withdraw the second application and deferred the sentencing of N for the contempts of which he had been found guilty. 

Shipping – Bill of lading. SG made an unconditional tender of the bill of lading to the claimant bank on G's behalf, but the claimant had declined to accept it. The claimant refused to make payment under the letter of credit and G commenced proceedings. The claimant then paid the full amount of the face value of the letter of credit. It subsequently brought proceedings against the defendant. The judge held that the claimant had become the holder of the bill of lading when it was presented at its counters under the letter of credit, and so had acquired the right to sue on that date, or when it met G's demands. The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that, although the judge had given a different meaning to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992, s 5(2)(b), he had been right to hold that the claimant had become the holder of the bill of lading when it met G's demands and that the rights of suit under the contract of carriage had become vested in it. 

Health and safety at work – Duty to employees. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the defendant company's appeal, held that a fine of £100,000, given to the company following the death of one of its employees in an accident at work, had been too high and that the fine should have been £65,000.