Latest Cases

Community legal service funding – Legal Services Commission. The claimant solicitors' firm was a 'panel' solicitor with a contract to provide appropriate legal services in connection with criminal cases. It sought additional payment in respect of 869 hours of time spent reviewing CCTV material. The Legal Services Commission refused and the costs judge affirmed that decision. The claimant appealed. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that, on its proper construction, the Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007, SI 2007/1174, did not allow for additional payment for a litigator addressing CCTV evidence. 

Company – Creditors voluntary liquidation. The claimant creditors of a company in creditors' voluntary liquidation issued proceedings against the former liquidator, R, of the company alleging fraud and seeking relief under s 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the s 212 proceedings). Shortly before the trial of that application, R made an interim application, among other things, seeking an order adjourning the trial. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that an unheralded very late application of the instant nature did not fit into the very narrow gap through which trivial non-compliance might be allowed to pass. R did not qualify as an applicant to challenge the validity of the claimants' proofs. It followed that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a challenge by it to a consent order made in the s 212 proceedings. 

Natural justice – Judge. Following the giving of the main judgment in a case, the issue of committal proceedings against the first defendant, U remained. U made an application for the judge to recuse himself. The judge held that, given the circumstances and the seriousness of the allegations, the application would be allowed. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. A had been convicted of sexual offences and the Secretary of State sought to deport him. A challenged the deportation decision. One of his grounds of opposition was that he would be subject to violence in his country of origin if his crimes were known. An order was made, without notice to the media and without the ability for them to make representations, under s 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 that A could not be identified. The BBC sought to have that order set aside. The application was dismissed. The BBC appealed. The Supreme Court held that it had, in the circumstances, been necessary and lawful to have departed from the principles of open justice. Further, the order had not been incompatible with the rights of the BBC under art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the procedure that had been followed had satisfied the BBC's entitlement to an effective remedy. 

Criminal law – Assault. The appellant was diagnosed with genital herpes. He entered into a sexual relationship with the victim, but did not tell her about that diagnosis. The victim was diagnosed with genital herpes. The appellant pleaded guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to s 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and was sentenced to 14 months custody. The appellant appealed against conviction and sentence. Dismissing the appeal against conviction, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that there had been sufficient evidence to sustain a charge under s 20 of the Act. Further, the appellant had not been failed by his legal representative in the preparation of his case in such a way as to call into question the safety of his conviction. Furthermore, the appellant's guilty plea had been a properly informed, voluntary and unequivocal plea of guilty. Regarding the appeal against sentence, the initial sentence had been appropriate. However, there had been a substantial delay which had not been of the appellant's own making. In those circumstances, a course would not be taken which would necessitate the appellant's return to custody. 

Injunction – Confidential information. The claimant solicitor brought an action for misuse of private and confidential information and harassment, and for damages against the defendant sex worker. She counterclaimed for damages for harassment against him, and an injunction to restrain him from further harassing her or attending at her home, or disclosing information about her sex work. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was entitled to an order restraining the defendant from further disclosing any of the confidential or private information already disclosed by her which relates to his wife and his children, however the claim for harassment by the claimant failed. The claimant was found to have embarked on a course of conduct that constituted harassment but in all the circumstances, the defendant was not entitled to damages. 

Divorce – Practice. The court was hearing applications by the Queen's Proctor to dismiss a large number of divorce petitions and also, in many of the cases, to set aside decrees of divorce (some nisi, some absolute) obtained in consequence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice on an almost industrial scale. An important question arose in relation to the possible impact on the reporting of the proceedings of the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926 (the 1926 Act). The Family Court held that publication by the media of a report of the proceedings had not, given the nature of the proceedings, engaged the mischief at which the 1926 Act had been directed. 

Conflict of laws – Foreign judgment. The claimant sought to enforce the judgment of the Superior Court of Arizona concerning the lease of a property in Mexico in England and Wales. It contended that the Arizona court had jurisdiction by virtue of the parties' agreement to submit to the law and jurisdiction of Arizona. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the application, held that the parties had intended to substitute the law and jurisdiction of Arizona for those of Mexico. Further, despite the defendant's contention, there was no provision of Mexican public policy establishing that the state in Mexico where land was situated had exclusive jurisdiction over disputes related to leases of that land. 

Bankruptcy – Individual insolvency. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of s 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the fact that an income payments agreement had been made in respect of a bankrupt, did not mean that a court had no jurisdiction to grant an income payments order under the Act. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Care orders had been made in respect of four siblings, with placement orders being made in respect of the two youngest. The mother appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the mother's appeal on the grounds that the judge had not considered the changed circumstances since the event that had given rise to the local authority commencing proceedings and because the judge had not considered less draconian orders. The court also made practice points regarding notification of appeals to parties and preparation of bundles where the party appealing was a litigant in person.