Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. MN was severely disabled and had been living in an adult facility, RCH, which provided care funded by ACCG. MN's parents requested that ACCG fund a care package that enabled MN to visit his family home, and enabled his mother to become involved in his intimate care. ACCG refused, and sought an order from the Court of Protection that MN reside in accommodation and receive contact with his parents as directed by ACCG. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to look at all potential options in a best interests analysis, but was limited to those available. Where a public body had breached Convention rights in the options it had made available, a challenge could be made under s 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998. If that application was successful, it was in those exceptional circumstances that the court might look at other options. In the circumstances of the instant case, the contact plan submitted by ACCG was in MN's best interests. 

Damages – Personal injury. The German claimant was injured in an English factory and liability was admitted by the defendant owner. The first claimant was paid by the second claimant, the German social security. The claimants brought claims in the English courts for personal injury and repayment of the benefits. The Queen's Bench Division answered certain preliminary questions. 

Costs – Assessment. The claimant applied for the detailed assessment of 15 bills of costs for which the parties eventually agreed a reduction of one fifth. Despite that, the costs master held that there were special circumstances under s 70(10) of the Solicitors Act 1974. Instead of awarding the claimant its costs, he ordered the claimant to pay the defendant 70% of its costs of the assessment. The claimant applied for permission to appeal. The Queen's Bench Division granted permission and allowed the appeal on the basis that the judge had used the incorrect approach. The effect of that error was that the normal one-fifth rule had to apply and it followed that the claimant was entitled to the costs of the assessment. 

Ward of court – Jurisdiction. The police had referred a family, which included six children, to the local authority following alleged domestic violence. Upon the authority's involvement, the parents sent three of their children abroad without supervision. The authority secured an order for their return, but the parents refused to comply. The Family Division invoked its inherent jurisdiction and attached penal notices to the orders. The authority issued an application in the Family Division to commit the parents to prison for contempt of court. Both parents were found to be in contempt of court in circumstances where the father knew where the children were but had refused to secure their return and the mother had failed to be open and co-operative. 

Company – Member. The claimant presented a petition for relief from unfair prejudice under s 994 of the Companies Act 2006. In January 2013, the judge allowed the individual defendants' application to strike out the claimant's petition in part. The claimant appealed and the defendants cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the first allegation struck out could not properly be determined without hearing evidence and making findings of fact. Further, the claimant had not unreasonably refused an offer to buy out his shares making the petition an abuse of process. However, the claimant would be required to provide further particulars. 

Patent – Infringement. The claimant was the patentee of a European patent for a tilting device for a seat back. The defendant manufactured a seat with a tilting back. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for patent infringement. The judge found that the defendant's seat did not infringe and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the short answer to the claimant's point was that the language of the claim did not support its construction. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The Employment Appeals Tribunal considered the employee's appeal in a case relating to alleged race discrimination, victimisation and harassment. It held that the employment tribunal had erred in finding that, without more, to conduct a case by not telling the truth was to conduct a case unreasonably, and that the case would be remitted to the employment tribunal for reconsideration. 

Judicial review – Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The applicants had all been refused naturalisation as British citizens on the ground that they were not of 'good character'. Their applications for judicial review failed and they were granted permission to appeal. The appeals were stayed pending any certification of their applications by the Secretary of State under s 2D of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, which would give them the opportunity to challenge the Secretary of State's decisions to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). At a directions hearing, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, stayed the judicial review proceedings pending determination of any application to the SIAC. 

Libel and slander – Privilege. The judge struck out the claimant's defamation and malicious falsehood claims concerning the defendant's Parliamentary statements repeated to a Queen's Counsel (the QC) on the basis that he could not enquire into the defendant's state of mind before the QC without enquiring into his state of mind before the committee, which would violate art 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 (art 9). The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that art 9 prohibited an examination of the defendant's assertions to the QC, as the characteristics of instances where the protection of art 9 extended to extra-Parliamentary speech had been present. 

Proceeds of crime – Order for forfeiture: Sheriff Court: In an action seeking an order under s 298 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for forfeiture of cash totalling £58,700 seized from the defender's vehicle, the pursuers contending that the cash was being used in connection with drug dealing or intended for use in the drugs trade, the court granted the order sought, holding that the cash recovered from the vehicle was recoverable property or intended for use in unlawful conduct in terms of s 298.