Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The father, a convicted sex offender, applied to the court for contact with his child. The expert evidence recommended no contact and the mother applied to have the matter dealt with summarily without any representation from the father who's legal aid certificate had been terminated. The Family Court refused to deal with the matter summarily and adjourned the matter to enable the relevant parties to intervene in the proceedings to make such submissions as were appropriate in relation, in particular, to the argument that, in such a situation, the expenditure which was not available from the Legal Aid Agency but which, was necessary to be incurred to ensure proceedings which were just and fair. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) had dismissed the employee's unfair dismissal claims, having found that her dismissal had not been by reason of protected disclosures that she had made and that her dismissal had, therefore, been fair. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the dismissal had been by reason of her misconduct, that the dismissal had been fair and that the tribunal's decision had not been perverse. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to the United States to face trial for conspiracy to defraud. He contended that the circumstances fulfilled s 108(7) of the Extradition Act 2003, as it would be a real injustice for him to be extradited with a high risk of suicide and untreated post-traumatic stress disorder when the issue had not previously been properly put before the court. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that there had been no exceptional circumstances in relation to matters that should have been raised and there was no injustice. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The claimant companies issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to treat as medicinal products the large number of glucosamine-containing products (GCP) described as food supplements. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimants had failed to establish that the defendant had erred in refusing to treat all GCPs, alternatively, all GCPs marketed with a daily recommended dose of 1500mg, as medicinal products. 

Animal – Protection. The claimant Royal Society for the Protection of Birds challenged the Secretary of State's decisions directing Natural England to consent to the culling of certain birds. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been plainly entitled to conclude that the integrity of the site would not be affected by the cull. 

Shipping – Cargo. The charterers chartered a large, oil-carrying vessel from the owners. They made requests to the owners to be allowed to transfer crude oil from the vessel into another, similar vessel. The owners refused all their requests. The charterers brought proceedings, submitting that the owners had acted unreasonably in refusing their requests. At first instance, the judge found for the charterers. The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the owners' appeal, held that the judge at first instance had been entitled to make the conclusions that he had done. 

Employment – Continuity. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employees appeal, held that reg 13(4) of the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246 (TUPE), imposed no obligation on a transferee or a transferor to provide information to employees of the transferor, not even to their own employees. Accordingly, TUPE did not provide the employees with an independent cause of action against the transferee respondent. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. B was a young woman with mild learning difficulties. Following local authority intervention she was placed in a care home and her father was made subject to an injunction and orders prohibiting him from having direct contact with her. The local authority came before the court seeking a final determination of the case. The Court of Protection held that it was in the best interests of B to maintain the restrictions in contact and the injunction orders and that it was essential that B had peace from litigation and the instant was the best way of securing it. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The judge ordered the first claimant to pay sums to the defendants under its cross-undertaking in damages in respect of a freezing order. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, gave guidance on the assessment of damages under a cross-undertaking. 

Criminal law – Trial. The defendants were due to be tried for terrorism related offences. The court ordered that the entirety of the criminal trial be held in private and that the defendants would remain anonymous. Further restrictions were placed on reporting the hearing and judgment that had resulted in that order having been made. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, ordered that, although the core of the trial should be in private, part would be held in open court. Further, the anonymity orders would be lifted and, finally, the order that had prohibited reporting of the earlier proceedings had not been justified.