Latest Cases

Mental health – Admission of patient to hospital. The claimant, aged 17, was facing trial for assault. He sought judicial review of the judge's order under s 35 of the Mental Health Act 1983, remanding him to hospital for a report to be made on his mental condition. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that s 35 of the Act did not permit an order to be made for the purpose of obtaining evidence relevant to an issue at trial. Although relating to a trial on indictment, the order was quashed, as it contained a jurisdictional error of such gravity as to take the case out of the jurisdiction of the court below. 

European Union – Family proceedings. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered a reference for a preliminary ruling by the English Court of Appeal and held that jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility, which had been prorogued, under art 12(3) of Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility), in favour of a court of a member state before which proceedings had been brought by mutual agreement by the holders of parental responsibility, ceased following a final judgment in those proceedings 

Divorce – Petition. The Family Court considered an application by the Queen's Proctor to dismiss a large number of petitions for divorce and to set aside decrees of divorce where the petitions had apparently all been obtained as part of a fraud originating in Italy. The court held that, in each case, that the English court had been deceived as to the court's jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed and the decrees set aside as being void for fraud. 

Company – Director. The defendant was disqualified from acting as a director or insolvency practitioner for a minimum of two years, pursuant to s 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, for failing to keep adequate accounting records in respect of a company. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the deputy registrar had applied the correct test and that the cumulative effect of his findings justified the finding of unfitness. 

Subrogation – Circumstances in which doctrine available. The judge struck out the claimant's claim pleading set-off of his claim against the first defendant's (TIL) charge and entered summary judgment on TIL's counterclaims on the basis of subrogation of an earlier charge. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to approach the application for summary judgment on TIL's two alternate hypotheses. Further, the claimant's argument that TIL had not relied expressly on the earlier charge when appointing receivers over his property provided no defence and there were no equitable defences available to the claimant to defeat TIL's claim to be subrogated. 

Income tax – Annual payment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) ruled on the liability of the taxpayer under his contract of employment to refund a proportion of a taxable signing bonus when he had given notice to resign prior to the end of the period for which the employee had committed to remain an employee. It held, inter alia, that a payment which had been made by an employee could be brought into account in determining taxable earnings only where the same payment, made prior to the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, would have been brought into account in determining the amount of taxable emoluments. 

Local authority – Residential care home. The claimant 101-year-old British Asian woman sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision close her care home. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority had carried out adequate inquiries concerning the levels and nature of demand for residential care homes. There was no merit in any of the grounds in relation to the public sector equality duty and the authority had not failed to take into account relevant considerations, including the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and her claimed legitimate expectation that she had a home for life. 

Unfair dismissal – Date of dismissal. The employee was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. His last date of service was 24 August. His internal appeal, held on 9 January, reduced the finding to misconduct but the employee was still dismissed. The employment tribunal found that the decision on the internal appeal had not changed the effective date of termination for the purposes of calculating the time limit applicable to a claim for unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the decision on the internal appeal had done nothing to alter the effective date of termination. 

European Union – Trade marks. The applicant sought the partial annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (the Board), substantially upholding the decision of the Cancellation Division to revoke its Community trade mark 'LAMBRETTA'. The General Court of the European Union, in allowing the action, held that the Board had been required to examine the genuine use of the mark in relation to spare parts. Given that the Board had not carried out such an examination, the decision had to be annulled on the basis of infringement of art 51(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal refused the claimant's application to bring proceedings for race discrimination against the second respondent and stayed proceedings pending a determination of conduct proceedings by the Nursing and Midwifery Council. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the claimant's appeal, held that the tribunal had not considered how, and to what extent, the second respondent had been prejudiced by delay. Further, the order imposing a stay was revoked, only because it had made the stay conditional on a determination by a particular committee and had named the wrong committee.