Latest Cases

Abduction – Child. The Family Division adjourned the mother's application for permission to take the child on holiday to Mexico until the final hearing in the matter in July 2019, to allow for further evidence. The court found that as the mother had previously wrongfully retained the child in Mexico there was a risk of non-return if the child were to return to Mexico. In any event, further evidence was required, particularly from a CAFCASS guardian, before a decision could be made.

Medical practitioner – Appeal against determination of disciplinary committee. Had the issues of admissibility and weight been properly analysed and separated, as required by authority, the Nursing and Midwifery Council's Fitness to Practise Committee could not possibly have reached a proper conclusion that it had been fair to admit hearsay evidence. Accordingly, the Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the decision that her fitness to practise as a midwife was impaired by reason of her misconduct and that the appropriate sanction was an order striking her off the register.

Trust and trustee – Trustee's costs. The claimant trustee would be acting in the interests of the scheme as a whole by pursing the appeal and it would, therefore, be entitled to an indemnity in respect of its costs of doing so from the assets of the scheme. Accordingly, the Chancery Division allowed the trustee's application for Beddoe relief in relation to its appeal to the Supreme Court, but restricted the costs in respect of which the trustee was entitled to an indemnity from the scheme to £1,034,000.

Corporation tax – General accepted accounting principles. Overall, the focus of paragraphs 9 to 14 of Financial Reporting Standard 23 (FRS 23) was on economic factors. The term 'functional' currency itself gave something of a clue of the need to concentrate on what the entity actually did. Paragraph 11(a) of FRS 23 referred to whether the foreign operation's activities were carried on as an extension of the parent, rather than on whether those activities were carried on with a significant degree of autonomy. Consequently, the Upper Tribunal (Tax Chamber)(Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the taxpayer's appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that the taxpayer's argument to the effect that a dollar functional currency had been appropriate because all material decisions in relation to the taxpayer had been take by employees of the taxpayer's US parent company, could not be accepted.

Immigration – Deportation. There had been a material change of circumstances since an exception to the appellant's deportation had been established, so as to render lawful a reconsideration by the Secretary of State as to whether the exception preventing deportation subsisted. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, further held that it should be regarded as an obligation of good practice on the part of the Secretary of State to spell out in the notice of decision what were said to be the material changes of circumstance which had justified and founded the fresh decision and deportation order.

Jurisdiction – Challenge. The master had correctly refused the claimant an extension of time to serve the claim form and particulars of claim in his libel proceedings, to extend time for the defendants' CPR Pt 11 application challenging jurisdiction and to impose a permanent stay on proceedings. However, the Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the master had been wrong to find that the application to set aside service of the claim form could be made pursuant to CPR 3.4.

Immigration – Removal. As N v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2005] 4 All ER 1017) was binding on the court and the appellant could not satisfy its criteria, the appeal had to be dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, further refused the appellant permission to appeal to the Supreme Court sought on the basis that, because the appellant satisfied the criteria in Paposhvili v Belgium (App. No. 41738/10) ([2017] ECHR 41738/10), the case might be an appropriate vehicle for the Supreme Court to revisit the criteria in art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights medical cases.

Contract – Formation. The claimants' claim for sums allegedly due under an agreement with the defendant failed. The Commercial Court held that the agreement, under which the defendant member of the Bahraini royal family would have paid the claimants for the opportunity to meet various Bollywood actors, had not been made on the terms alleged.

Solicitor – Disciplinary proceedings. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had been entitled to find the appellant in breach of Principles 1 and 6 of the Solicitors Regulation Authority Principles 2011 and of his duty to achieve Outcome 5.6 the Code of Conduct 2011. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, further held that it was not established that the fine of £20,000 or the conditions imposed on the appellant the had been clearly inappropriate.

Evidence – Expert evidence. The application of the applicant companies (together, Lilly) for permission to rely upon experiments carried out in the course of other proceedings failed. The Patents Court held that Lilly had failed to follow accepted procedure for the admission of expert evidence, and there was no reason why a party ought to be rewarded for brazen disregard of the court's orders and the well-known practice.