Latest Cases

Criminal law – Suicide. The Supreme Court considered two appeals together, concerning three appellants who had suffered from permanent and catastrophic physical disabilities and wished to die at the time of their choosing. However, they were not physically capable of ending their own life unaided. The Court considered, amongst other things, whether s 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 infringed the appellants' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Practice – Striking out. In the course of proceedings, the appellant was required to provide documentation by an order of the court. She failed to do so, and her claim was struck out. The appellant applied for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9(1). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the instant circumstances were another instance of a history of delay and non-compliance by the appellant, and that the justice of the case did not require her to be granted relief from sanctions. The application would be dismissed. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The court revoked a lasting power of attorney executed by DP appointing JM. It found that JM had acted in breach of his fiduciary duties. The Daily Mail ran a story demanding to know why JM's anonymity had been preserved and its owner, the intervening party, made an application, in which it sought to have his full name made public. The Court of Protection, in allowing the application, held that the balance came down heavily and decisively in favour of the public being told who JM was. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) applied under s 41 of the County Courts Act 1984 for an order to transfer the personal injury claims, made by serving and former service personnel alleging noise induced hearing loss caused by service from existing County Courts all around the country to the High Court. A master dismissed the application. The MOD appealed. The Queen's Beench Division decided that the master had considered the various factors and had come to a decision which had been correct. 

Practice – Fast track. A subrogated claim had been issued by a care hire company against an insurance company following a road traffic accident. The claimant sought to have the claim allocated to the fast track where the damages claimed were above £5,000. The defendant admitted damages in a sum under £3,000, meaning that the disputed sum was under £4,000. The district judge allocated the claim to the small claims track and entered judgment in favour of the claimant in the admitted sum. The claimant's appeal against the allocation was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. There had been an unqualified admission by the defendant and judgment had been entered in that sum and accepted by the defendant. The sum disputed had been less than £5,000 and so the appropriate case allocation had been to the small claim track. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The mother and the father had a young had a child, A, who was born in New Zealand where the mother was from. When the child was very young the family moved to England where the father's parents lived. The relationship broke down, and the parties came before the court. The issues were what the long-term living arrangements for A should be and how should her care be divided between her mother and her father. The Family Court held that the weight of evidence established that it was clearly in A's best interests that the mother should be her main carer in the future. Her family were better able to meet A's long term needs than the father and his family, however committed and important they undoubtedly were and would remain. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Sudanese national sought judicial review of his immigration detention on grounds including the defendant Secretary of State's failure to respond to medical reports, allegedly supporting his claim to have been tortured. The Administrative Court held that the claimant was only entitled to nominal damages for one period of unlawful detention, as he would have been detained in any event. However, he was entitled to real damages for a period of unlawful detention after service of a further medical report, which would have resulted in the quashing of the deportation order. The court further ordered the claimant's release. 

Minor – Abduction. In the course of proceedings between the Spanish mother and English father, the Supreme Court referred a question to the Family Division. The Family Division held that, on the evidence, none of the children in the case had lost their habitual residence in England when the mother had taken them to Spain. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimants challenged the lawfulness of their grants of leave to remain on the basis that para 276BE of the Immigration Rules fettered the defendant Secretary of State's discretion to grant the child applicants longer than 30 months leave to remain, which was inimical to the fact-sensitive consideration of their childrens best interests, as required by s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that para 276BE of the Immigration Rules was not unlawful as alleged and that the decision to grant the claimants a period of 30 months as requested had not been unlawful. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimants alleged that the defendant had, at the relevant time, acted as the de facto director of the second claimant company (NL), in which he had shares. The first claimant brought a claim against the defendant for damages for breach of contract, contending that the defendant had failed to transfer shares in NL which he had sold to it within the time specified in two agreements. NL brought a claim, contending that the defendant had acted in breach of his fiduciary duty to NL. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claims, held that, whilst the first claimant had established a breach of contract by the defendant in failing to transfer the shares in NL on or after the relevant date, it had failed to establish the loss it claimed to have been caused by that breach. Further, NL had failed to prove that the defendant had been a de facto director of NL during the relevant period and, accordingly, the claims had to fail.