Latest Cases

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The parties were a same sex couple. One of the couple had conceived a baby by means of an internet sperm donor. Once the baby was two months old she took the baby back to Ireland, where she was from. Ms L, the other member of the couple, issued two applications in the English court. First for permission to apply for a residence order and a contact order under the Children Act 1989 and secondly for declarations that at the point of the child's departure from England, Ms L was acting as her 'psychological parent' and that they shared family life within the meaning of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Family Division made a declaration that at the date of the child's removal from England family life within the meaning of art 8 of the Convention existed between the couple. In accordance with art 17 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003, the court had no jurisdiction in relation to matters of parental responsibility concerning the child. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Within the context of care proceedings, a care and placement order was made in respect of a child. The parents appealed and the county court judge found that the justices had erred in law. She then undertook her own welfare analysis and proportionality assessment and remade the decision. The father appealed the care and placement order made by the judge. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, gave guidance on when an appellate judge could remake a decision or whether the matter should be reheard. The father's appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national entered the United Kingdom lawfully as a student. He did not leave the UK and completed his MBA whilst he did not have valid leave. The claimant applied for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) migrant, relying on the award of his MBA. The defendant Secretary of State refused that application. The decision contained a typographical error. The claimant sought judicial review. In dismissing the application, the Administrative Court held that there was no room in a points-based system for a near miss principle, and in the instant case, the fact that the claimant's leave had expired two months before the completion of his MBA had not been a near miss justifying the grant of leave. Further, the typographical errors in the decision letter had been immaterial. In any event, the decision had been withdrawn and a correct decision substituted in its place, which could not be ignored. 

Company – Transfer of shares. The claimant owned shares in a company. Other shareholders formed a corporate vehicle, by which they sought to acquire all shares in the company. All members of the company except A accepted the offer. A subsequently brought proceedings, contending that unfair prejudice had occurred, including that the company had sought to expropriate his shares at a gross undervalue. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, no impropriety had occurred, and the claim would be dismissed. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) had ruled that a survivor's pension scheme that had excluded partners registered in a civil partnership from benefits derived from service prior to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was incompatible with Directive (EC) 2000/78. In allowing the employer's appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had erred in holding the provisions of para 18 of Sch 9 to the Equality Act 2010 was incompatible with the Directive. The Directive did not purport to have retrospective effect such that inequalities in pay arising on the basis of sexual orientation prior to the date it was to have been transposed could form the basis of a claim after transposition though they could not have done before in the context of the employer's occupational pension scheme. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant brought claims in the United Kingdom and in Venezuela against the defendant International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, seeking declarations that the defendant was liable to indemnify it in respect of its liability to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for claims following an oil spill. The claimant sought freezing orders in respect of both the UK and the Venezuelan proceedings. The defendant contended that it had immunity from the grant of any freezing order under the International Oil Pollution Fund (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1979, SI 1979/912, (the Order). The Commercial Court held that the defendant did not have such immunity in relation to the English court proceedings. The immunity conferred under s 6(1) of the order was only granted if and to the extent that the 'suit or legal process' did not fall within one of the listed exceptions. Legal process included a freezing order. Therefore, the exceptions covered freezing orders. A freezing order was granted in respect of proceedings in the UK only. 

Contract – Construction. The claimant appealed against the judge's finding that it had been in breach of a settlement agreement by failing to supply the defendant with pre-contractual documentation for the purchase of a plot. It contended that the requirement to 'exchange contracts' meant only the supply of signed documents. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that 'exchange contracts' had included normal pre-contractual conveyancing procedures. Accordingly, the claimant's failure to provide those documents in correct terms had constituted a breach of the settlement agreement. 

Privacy – Citizen's right to privacy. The issue in the case concerned the powers and duties of the defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners to disclose information about its export control functions to the claimant non-governmental organisation, Privacy International. The Administrative Court held that the Revenue's decision that s 18 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 provided that it might not disclose any information had been unlawful. The court further identified factors relevant to the Revenue's exercise of discretion to disclose, including the status of affected persons, securing cooperation and confidence in the system, and the right to a 'no further action' decision and reasons. 

European Union – Taxation. The United Kingdom applied to annul Council Decision (EU) 2013/52 authorising enhanced co-operation in the area of financial transaction tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action as the contested decision had not been contrary to either art 327 or 332 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

Land registration – Charge. The proceedings arose from two sets of circumstances involving the claimant and his brothers, who were the first and fifth defendant. The disputes concerned the development of premises in Liverpool, and building work carried out in Dubai. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the fifth defendant's claims would be dismissed. The claimant would be entitled to an order removing a charge on the Liverpool property. His other claims would be dismissed.