Latest Cases

Adoption – practice. N, who was born in 2008, suffered from severe disabilities. She had lived all her life, once outside hospital, with the applicants. The applicants applied for an adoption order. N's father applied for a contact order. The Family Court held that, in the circumstances, an adoption order would be made and the father's application would be dismissed. 

European Union – Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 2(b) and (d), art 4(1)(a) and (c), art 12(b) and sub-paragraph (a) of the first paragraph of art 14 of Directive (EC) 95/46 of the European Parliament and of the and of art 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Google Spain SL and Google Inc. and the Spanish Data Protection Agency (the AEPD); and Mr Costeja González concerning a decision by the AEPD upholding the complaint lodged by Mr Costeja González against those two companies and ordering Google Inc. to adopt the measures necessary to withdraw personal data relating to Mr Costeja González from its index and to prevent access to the data in the future. 

Divorce – Foreign decree. The husband and wife were both Russians and were married there in 2002. They went through the formalities for divorce required by the law of the Russian Federation at the Consulate of the Russian Federation in London. When the husband sought to marry his fiancée in the United Kingdom, the authorities took the point that the divorce was not recognised. The husband applied to the court for a declaration of marital status. The Family Court held that, under ss 44 and 45 of the Family Law Act 1986, the divorce was not recognised in the United Kingdom and, therefore, the parties remained married under English law. 

European Union – Conservation of natural habitats. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of art 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive (EEC) 92/43 (on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora). The request had been made in proceedings between T.C. Briels and Others and the Netherlands Minister for Infrastructure and the Environment concerning a project for widening a specific motorway. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant doctor brought a claim in libel against the defendant newspaper. The defendant applied to strike out the claim on the basis that the claimant had failed to sufficiently identify the publication of which he complained. The Queen's Bench Division considered the appropriate law and held that the claim would be struck out as the precise words had not been identified and the defendant needed to know exactly what words were complained of in a long article, so that it could frame its defence appropriately. 

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. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union allowed in part appeals by the European Commission, Siemens Transmission and Distribution Ltd, Siemens Transmission and Distribution SA and Nuova Magrinin Galileo SpA (the applicant companies), in which they sought to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union annulling in part and varying a Commisison decision relating to a proceedings under art 81 EC and art 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement regarding gas insulted switchgear. 

Negligence – Contributory negligence. The claimant, a 14 year old girl, was knocked down by the defendant who was driving a motor vehicle. The claimant sustained serious head injuries and brought a personal injury claim in negligence against the defendant. In a trial to determine primary liability and contributory negligence, the Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant had been primarily negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and that claimant had been contributory negligent to the extent of 50%. 

Arbitration – Costs. The claimant, Sun United, sought to challenge an award on costs issued by an arbitration tribunal. It contended that under s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, among other things, the tribunal had had no jurisdiction to make the costs award. The Commercial Court held that, on the true construction of the Act, the application did not fall within s 67 of the Act, and would be dismissed. 

Extradition – Discharge of fugitive. The district judge, having accepted the judicial authority's assurance that the mandatory death sentence would not be carried out, refused to order the respondent's extradition to Ghana to face trial for murder, as it would be incompatible with his rights under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judicial authority appealed. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had not been entitled to reject the specific assurance and that the mere fact that the death sentence would be imposed, by itself, did not impose a bar on extradition. However, the respondent would face treatment which would be inhuman and degrading to him, despite the assurance given, particularly given his mental health.