Latest Cases

Adoption – Consent. The Family Division dismissed the applicant father's application for a residence order in respect of the fourth respondent child, F. It granted a placement order in favour of the first respondent local authority and, dispensing with the father's consent, an order pursuant to s 28 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 authorising the authority to place F out of the jurisdiction with the maternal aunt and uncle, TM and KM. In the instant case, those orders had been in F's best interests. F's primary need had been for a carer or carers who were able to meet her emotional needs and were able to afford her stable and consistent care throughout her minority. TM and KM could, but the father could not, meet that primary need. Only a placement for adoption with TM and KM would meet F's welfare needs and nothing else would do. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Portuguese national was subject to a deportation order and detained pending deportation. He appealed unsuccessfully on human rights grounds. Subsequently, he sought to apply for revocation of the deportation order on the basis of change of circumstances. The Secretary of State refused the application and certified, pursuant to Reg 26(5) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1003, the grounds relied on as having been previously considered in an earlier appeal. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review as the Regulations were not incompatible with either European Union law or the European Convention on Human Rights and the claimant's detention had not been unlawful. However, the certification decision would be quashed as it had been flawed for want of legally adequate reasons. 

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. The Chancery Division, Bankruptcy Court, set aside a deputy registrar's decision: (i) dismissing a former bankrupt's application for the annulment of his bankruptcy; and (ii) granting the trustee in bankruptcy's application that he and his predecessor be remunerated by reference to the time properly given by them and their staff in attending to matters arising in the bankruptcy where the deputy registrar had failed to apply settled law and the relevant Practice Direction in considering those applications. 

Contract – Construction. The Commercial Court considered the interpretation of a contract in the course of a dispute about the sale of cotton to a Bangladeshi company. The court held that, on the true construction of the contract, the Technical Appeal Committee of the International Cotton Association had erred in finding that a clause was incorporated in the contract, which entitled the defendant company to a payment from the claimant pursuant to an invoicing back clause. 

Misrepresentation – Negligent misrepresentation. The respondents were the owners of a grouse moor, over which commercial shooting took place. The appellant (the company) had been formed by E and his wife as a vehicle for entering into contract with the respondents for the lease of the moor. The company unsuccessfully brought proceedings, alleging that it had been induced to enter into the contract by negligent misrepresentation. The Supreme Court, in allowing the company's appeal, held that the respondents had owed a duty of care to the company and to E, which they had breached and that, accordingly, the company was entitled to recover damages for any loss suffered as a result of that breach. The case was remitted to the Court of Session for further procedure. 

Costs – Order for costs. The judge dismissed the claimant's claim for rent from the defendant, ordered him to pay the defendant's costs and purportedly awarded the defendant a sum on its counterclaim. The claimant was granted permission to appeal against the award, on the ground that the defendant had only sought set off. The defendant conceded that point. The claimant consented to the disposal of the appeal, if the defendant disclosed documents. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division allowed the appeal with respect to the award by consent. However, it ordered the claimant to pay the defendant's costs from his consent to the disposal, given the history of the matter. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings brought by Mrs Sokoll‑Seebacher, concerning the opening of a pharmacy in the municipality of Pinsdorf, in the Province of Upper Austria. 

Child – Sexual abuse. In the course of public law children proceedings, concerning allegations of sexual abuse of a 17-month-old girl by her 13-year-old uncle, A, the judge made case management orders that A should not give oral evidence or be cross-examined and refused to give directions relating to the disclosure of a limited number of source documents. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that there had been a clear procedural irregularity in the decision that A should not give oral evidence and there could have been no basis for the essential source documents not being disclosed. 

Evidence – Similar facts. The claimants issued proceedings against the defendant Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, seeking relief in respect of alleged false imprisonment, assault, racial discrimination and infringements of their human rights. They made numerous applications contingent on the admission of eleven incidents of similar fact evidence against individual police officers. The parties sought the determination of the admissibility of the evidence as a preliminary issue. The Queen's Bench Division found four incidents were admissible, as they passed the test set out in O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police ([2005] 2 All ER 931). 

Injunction – Company. In the course of proceedings, the Commercial Court made an injunction to limit the defendant's ability to communicate with a third party. The claimant made an application to have the injunction lifted. The court held that, given that the injunction had been subject to misrepresentations and that, practically speaking, it served little purpose, it would be appropriate for the injunction not to continue.