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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to accept her further representations as fresh claims and not to treat her case on an exceptional basis. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the Secretary of State had been fully entitled to determine that there had been no fresh evidence which had disclosed a real possibility that the findings of the immigration judge might be undermined before a new immigration judge. Further, there had been no public law error refusing to grant the claimant exceptional leave. 

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. 

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.