William Byfield's Secret E-Diary

Contract – Consumer contract. The defendant company's challenge to jurisdiction failed, in a case concerning an investment the claimant had made through Bitcoin. The defendant, relying on art 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, contended that A was bound by its standard terms and conditions, which provided that the courts of Cyprus were to have exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes and controversies arising out of, or in connection with, her customer agreement. The issue concerned whether A was a 'consumer'. The Commercial Court held that the purpose of A's contract had been outside of any business of hers and fell within art 17 of the Regulation. On that basis, the challenge to jurisdiction was dismissed.

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection, applying s 4 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005), approved, in part, the applicant's treatment plan concerning the first respondent, a 78-year-old man who suffered from advanced vascular dementia, and whose physical condition had significantly deteriorated.

Minor – Custody-. A retention which took place other than in a contracting state was a retention which was justiciable, under the Hague Convention 1980, in a contracting state. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the mother's appeal against an order made by a judge in England, requiring the return of a child (C) to Australia, where C had been habitually resident, and in circumstances where the wrongful retention had occurred in Uganda, a non-contracting state, before the parties had travelled to the UK. The court held that the judge had been right to determine that the wrongful retention in Uganda continued to be a justiciable retention.

Family Proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In an appeal from a decision dismissing care proceedings in respect of two children at an interim stage and recommending private proceedings as a means of resolving the issues, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the local authority and the Children's Guardian's appeal. It held that the trial judge should have affirmed that the threshold was to be approached from the perspective of the children. Further, the judge should have appreciated that delay in bringing proceedings, however lamentable, could not, of itself, be determinative of the threshold under the Children Act 1989.

European Union – Environment. By the adoption of Implementing Decision C(2016) 3549 final, the European Commission had granted three waste recycling companies an authorisation for uses of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. ClientEarth, established in London unsuccessfully sought an internal review of the authorisation decision. In the present proceedings, ClientEarth sought annulment of the Commission's decision to reject its internal review request and annulment of the authorisation decision. The General Court of the European Union dismissed ClientEarth's action on the basis that all the arguments relied on by ClientEarth in support of its application were unfounded.