Latest Cases

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. 

Statutory duty – Breach. The claimant company was an unsuccessful tenderer in a tendering process managed by the defendant local authority. It brought a claim for breaches of statutory duty against the authority. The Technology and Construction Court held that, among other things, there had been no breaches of the principles of equality and non-discrimination, and no room for the implication of breach of contract. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Criminal law – Sexual activity. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, on an application by the Attorney General, substituted a sentence of three years' imprisonment, in circumstances where the offender had been convicted of inciting his granddaughter, a child under the age of 13, to engage in sexual activity contrary to s 8(1) of the Sexual Offences Act, and had been given a community order. The court held that, in the circumstances, there were no exceptional factors which might have permitted the Recorder to justify a sentence outside the guideline range. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Slovakia to stand trial for minor theft and minor property damage, relying on art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and alleging that the judge had erred in finding that to discharge him would be 'endorsing his behaviour'. The Administrative Court held that the judge had taken account of a factor which had been no proper part of the balancing exercise. Approaching the balancing exercise afresh, the hardship to the appellant and his family was not such as to overcome the public interest in extradition. 

Fire – Damages. The proceedings concerned a dispute as to liability in respect of a fire which had occurred at the defendant's premises and spread to the claimant's premises. The claimant contended that the fire had started as a result of the self-combustion of linseed oil-soaked rags, which the defendant had disposed of in an unlidded metal tin within the spray booth enclosure at the defendant's premises. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the fire had not started as alleged by the claimant, and accepted the defendant's case that the cause of the fire had been an electric fault. 

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. 

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.