Latest Cases

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 107 of Council Regulation (EEC) 574/72 (laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community), as amended. The request had been made in proceedings between Mrs Wagener and the German Federal Employment Agency concerning the grant of dependent child allowance in Germany. 

Practice – Counterclaim. The parties had been engaged in proceedings in different jurisdictions before entering into an exclusive jurisdiction agreement that conferred jurisdiction on the English courts. Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky had issued proceedings in the Commercial Court whereas the bank and Mr Savelyev issued and served proceedings in the Chancery Division. The Chancery Division disapplied the Russian limitation period pursuant to s 2(2) of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 but dismissed the Arkhangelskys' application for an anti-enforcement injunction to prevent enforcement of the judgments previously obtained against them. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had, in the circumstances, been correct to grant the anti-enforcement injunction, but had erred in refusing to grant the anti-enforcement injunction. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to grant a European Economic Area family permit and entry clearance to enable the second claimant Kenyan national to enter and reside in the United Kingdom with her husband, the first claimant, and their three children. The Administrative Court stayed those proceedings pending determination of the claimants' statutory appeal and the Court of Justice of the European Union's determination on the court's reference in R (on the application of McCarthy and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2012] All ER (D) 372 (Nov)), concerning whether the UK's approach to residence cards issued by other member states was lawful. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. A child, aged nine, had been cared for all his life by his grandparents in Lithuania, while his mother lived in Northern Ireland. The mother returned to Lithuania and snatched the child from the grandmother and returned to Northern Ireland. The High Court in Northern Ireland refused the grandparents' application for a declaration that the child had been wrongfully retained in Northern Ireland. The Court of Appeal dismissed the grandparents appeal. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, art 3 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 was to be interpreted to include a strictly limited category of inchoate rights of custody. On the facts, the grandmother's status had constituted 'rights of custody' in relation to the child, for the purpose of the Convention and Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003. 

Costs – Litigant in person. The Bar Standards Board sought judicial review of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court's decision awarding the interested party non-practising barrister costs. The Divisional Court held that the application of CPR 48.6 should have led to the conclusion that the interested party had not been entitled to charge for the expenditure of her own professional skill and judgment. However, the CPR were not even persuasive. Accordingly, the interested party's expenditure of her own time and skill could be compensated, and was assessed at £60 per hour. 

Arbitration – Award. The parties entered into agreements by which the defendant was to act as a global placement agent for the claimant, with a view to raising capital for claimant's real estate fund. The claimant purported to terminate the agreements for alleged breach by the defendant. A dispute over the payment of fees to the defendant was referred to arbitration. The arbitration tribunal considered a post-hearing submission by defendant and found its favour. The claimant appealed under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The Commercial Court, allowing the appeal in part, held that the tribunal had erred in dealing with an issue of which the claimant had had no notice and no opportunity to address. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. The claimant was awarded £1,545 in general damages after suffering from a flame burn injury to the dorsal aspect of the first web space of the left hand, resulting in scarring (pigmentation damage) to an area measuring 4 cm x 3.8 cm. The burn took one month to heal, and two years post-accident there was minimal discoloration. 

Immigration – Education. The defendant Secretary of State refused the claimant college highly trusted sponsor status due to its refusal rate greater than 20%, including 64 refusals on the ground that the student applicant was unable to confirm how the claimant had assessed their English language ability. The judge refused the claimant's application for judicial review and it appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the application, rejected the claimant's main argument that the ground of refusal was predicated on a requirement that was not contained in the Immigration Rules. 

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 1(u)(i), 4(1)(h) and 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as amended, and of art 10(1)(b)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) 574/72. The request had been made in proceedings between the Luxembourg National Agency for Family Benefits) (the CNPF) and Mr and Mrs Wiering, German residents working, respectively, in Luxembourg and Germany, concerning the CNPF's refusal to pay them a supplementary family allowance for their children. 

Landlord and tenant – Rent. The claimant tenant exercised a break clause in its lease with the defendant landlords. The judge implied a term which enabled the tenant to get back that part of the advance payment of rent which related to a period after the break date by when the lease would have been terminated. The landlords appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the correct inference to draw was that the parties had proceeded on the basis that the loss from a payment of rent for the broken period should lie where it fell.