Latest Cases

Infant – Care. The proceedings concerned an application by the local authority for anticipatory declaratory relief sanctioning a birth plan in respect of a vulnerable adult. Following an adjournment, the authority sought permission to withdraw its application. The Family Division, in granting the authority permission to withdraw its application, held that it had not been persuaded of the necessity for, or proportionality of, the relief sought. 

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. 

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. 

Tort – Conspiracy. The claimants brought an action concerning the sale of petrol-related chemicals to Iraq. They contended that, between 2003 and 2008, Innospec had conspired with others to injure them by engaging in corrupt practices, in particular the bribing of officials in the Iraqi Ministry of Oil (the MOO). They submitted that, had it not been for the bribery and corruption, the MOO would not have made a major contract with them. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the action, held that the claimants had failed to show that the decision had been procured by bribery and, on that ground, the claim failed. 

Criminal law – Child sex offences. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, refused an application by the Attorney General to refer a sentence as being unduly lenient pursuant to s 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The offender had been convicted of the rape of a child under 13 contrary to s 5(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. The rape had occurred when the offender's seven year old daughter had got into the offender's bed in the night and the offender claimed to remember nothing of the incident. The court noted the unusual circumstances of the case and held, amongst other things, that the judge had not downplayed, or not unreasonably downplayed, the relationship of father and child. 

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. 

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. 

Sale of land – Trustee. The claimant trustees of the Savernake estate sought the approval of the court for their decision to sell Tottenham House under a conditional contract for sale for £11.25m, which had been concluded following a limited marketing process. The first defendant beneficiary of the trust appealed against two orders which, in effect, approved the sale. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judges had been right to approve the claimants' decision to sell Tottenham House under the intended sale arrangements. The claimants could reasonably have accepted the view that an open market campaign would be risky and undesirable. 

Solicitor – Negligence. A company, Beacon, provided loans secured by mortgages over residential property. Beacon then sold the mortgages to the claimant company, Redstone. Redstone brought proceedings, contending that the defendant conveyancing solicitors, whom Beacon had employed on a retainer, had acted negligently. In a preliminary judgment, the Chancery Division made rulings as to whether the defendant had discharged its contractual duties to Beacon or its common law duties to Redstone regarding four cases. 

Insurance – Fraudulent insurance claim. In the course of a shipping claim, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered whether the rule whereby a fraudulent claim deprived the insured of any right to recover anything applied also in the case of 'fraudulent devices', namely statements made recklessly or with knowledge of their untruth to support a claim that was honestly believed to be true. In dismissing the claimant owners' appeal, the court held that the rule was to be applied in such circumstances and that it was proportionate for it to do so.