Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. Following a previous judgment on questions of law in deprivation of liberty cases involving adults who lacked capacity (see [2014] All ER (D) 43 (Aug)), the Court of Protection supplemented and elaborated on some of those questions. It held that a patient, P, was not required to be a party to welfare proceedings under domestic law or the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, P could participate in the proceedings without being joined and, if a party, he was not required to have a litigation friend. However, a litigation friend who did not act by a solicitor required the court's permission to act as P's advocate. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority. The interested party brought a complaint against the claimant insurance broker for its failure to act when dealing with his notification of a claim under a directors and officers insurance policy. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Financial Ombudsman Service's decision that the interested party had been eligible to bring the complaint. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the interested party had not fallen within the definition of 'consumer'. Accordingly, as an issue of precedent fact, he had not fallen within the compulsory jurisdiction of the defendant. 

Account – Action for. The claimants appealed against an order, made on the taking of accounts between the parties, ordering payment to the defendants of the balance found to be due. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimants' appeal, rejected the claimants' criticisms of the defendants' accounting and the master's findings, and held that the master had been fully entitled to draw the factual inferences that she had from the evidence before her and to have concluded that the claimants' disclosure had been inadequate. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The appellant appealed the refusal of the Commercial Court to extend a freezing order granted on foot of arbitration proceedings. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appeal on the basis that the evidence of 'risk of dissapation' fell short of what was required. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. On a return date of a freezing order in relation to proceedings in Belgian proceedings, the Commercial Court held that the evidence established a clear and real risk of dissipation of assets in the absence of freezing order relief. The existence of accounts in the United Kingdom, and the inference that there were assets in England and Wales, justified an order for disclosure of assets under s 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1925 extending to all the defendant's assets within England and Wales in support of the bank's claim in the Belgian proceedings. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. A child, SE, was born prematurely to the mother who was a drug addict. A care order was made in respect of the child in favour of the applicant local authority. When the child continued to suffer serious health problems, the local authority, supported by the mother and the weight of medical evidence sought declarations from the court that it was not in the child's interests to receive further life sustaining treatment. The Family Division held that the evidence supporting the declaration was overwhelming and made the declarations accordingly. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant insurer of the owners of a vessel brought claims in the United Kingdom and in Venezuela against the defendant fund seeking declarations that the defendant was liable to indemnify it in respect of its liability to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in respect of the Republic's claims for pollution damage arising out of the grounding the vessel, and the resulting oil spill. The defendant applied for a declaration that it was immune from jurisdiction, pursuant to s 6 of the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1979 (the 1979 Order). The Commercial Court, in allowing the application, held that the defendant was immune from the claimant's suit in the UK and that the English court had no jurisdiction over the claim. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The Family Division held that the courts of England and Wales were to assume jurisdiction in relation to a 15 year old girl, pursuant to the provisions of art 8 Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003, at the time the court was seised of proceedings, SS was habitually resident in England. While SS had connections with Spain and Romania, the court was not satisfied that the courts of either states would be better placed to determine SS's future, and it would not be in her interests that the proceedings be transferred. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) had upheld claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal in respect of an employee. The tribunal, by a majority, had found that the employer had been in breach of a duty to make reasonable adjustments for the employee because it would have been a reasonable adjustment to disregard a final written warning. The employer appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the findings of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal, having found that the findings of the tribunal had not been open to it. 

Costs – Order for costs. The claimant company sought judicial review of the decision of the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State, refusing it the costs of its successful appeal. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there was no clear explanation of why the inspector had felt that the material she had considered to have afforded a respectable basis for the local authority's stance had met the objective standard necessary to support the reasons for refusal.