Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division gave guidance on the best practice where CAFCASS were unaware of any case in which a third party, like the stepfather, had refused to co-operate with safeguarding checks on him and where the matter had come before a court. The court would therefore make the order in the terms submitted essentially requesting that the mother and stepfather reconsider their approach and co-operate with CAFCASS, following the court's consideration of the appropriateness of safeguarding and the balancing of the competing interests. 

Family provision – Property available for financial provision. A woman had died from terminal illness and her husband had received a payment under the life insurance policy that they held. However, they were in the process of divorcing at the time of her death and she had had a child with another partner. The child issued proceedings under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. A preliminary issue was determined which held that immediately before her death, the deceased had been entitled to a joint tenancy of the right under the life policy to benefit from her assumed terminal illness. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that although there had been a severable interest in the policy immediately prior to the deceased's death, it had had a nil value because the benefit had been dependent upon an appropriate claim having been made and, as no claim had been made, there had been no value to be treated as part of the estate. 

Damages – Quantum – Loss of society. Court of Session: In an action by the family of a 60-year-old man who was fatally injured when hit by a car driven by the first defender, seeking damages for loss of society, the court made awards of £18,000, £16,000 and £14,000 to the deceased's three grandchildren. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In a hostile dispute between the parents of an 11 year old child, the Family Division held that the child was to be joined as a party and separately represented by a completely independent guardian in the proceedings. The court declined to give any direction with regard to psychiatric or psychological examination as the appointment of a guardian would suffice. 

Carriage by air – Compensation for passengers – Time bar. Sheriff Court: Allowing an appeal against a sheriff's decision that a claim for compensation, brought under the small claims procedure following cancellation of a flight operated by the defender, was time barred by the pursuer's failure to raise proceedings within the two-year prescriptive period specified in the defender's general conditions of carriage, the court held that the action was not time barred as the two-year time bar in the defender's general conditions did not apply to any sum claimed under Regulation (EC) 261/2004. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following proceedings for personal injury, in which the defendant had joined a third party pursuant to CPR Pt 20, judgment on costs was given by reference to CPR 44.13 to 44.17, which had introduced the Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) regime. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the regime was not ultra vires, it did have retrospective effect and the regime did not apply to funding arrangements such as conditional fee agreements. Further, the QOCS regime had not applied to the proceedings between the defendant and third party as it did not apply to the entire action in a claim for damages. 

Libel and slander – Defamation. The first claimant was the CEO of the second claimant, a private landlord company. A newspaper article was published by the defendants in which it was alleged by the claimants had portrayed them as 'slum landlords'. The claimants brought a claim in defamation against the defendants as a result of the article. Following a trial of two preliminary issues, the Queen's Bench division held that the words complained of had the meaning that the claimants were a well-off landlord making money at the misery of the tenants. The claimants had nevertheless failed to demonstrated serious harm to reputations as required by s 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. 

Contract – Breach. The claimant was employed by the defendant local authority as head of languages at its college. The parties entered an agreement that the claimant would terminate his employment with the authority in return for a termination payment and an agreed letter of reference. The authority subsequently provided the police with a chronology detailing the claimant's disciplinary problems. The claimant issued proceedings for misrepresentation, breach of contract, negligence and/or malicious falsehood. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed all of the claims. 

Sentence – Notification and orders. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant court's dismissal of his appeal, under s 91C of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, against the Chief Constable's refusal to relieve him of notification obligations. The Divisional Court gave guidance on the nature of the appeal to the magistrates' court under s 91E of the Act. It then found that the defendant had erred in law in dismissing the appeal. The matter was remitted to a freshly constituted court, as it could not be concluded that there had been only one decision which the defendant could have reached. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. UF, a lady of 84 years of age; she has been diagnosed as suffering from vascular dementia and resided at a care home known as 'The Elms'. Following an application by UF's youngest daughter, in August 2013 as a challenge under s 21A Mental Capacity Act 2005 to the standard authorisation of deprivation of liberty, the Court of Protection held that it was in UF's interests that she remained resident at the care home.