Latest Cases

Land Registration – Rectification of register. The registration of a third party as registered proprietor of a property by the Land Registry giving effect to a court order made in default of appearance and obtained by use of documents which were later held to have been forgeries, did not result in a 'mistake' for the purposes of rectification of the Register under Land Registration Act 2002. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, further held that, as the registration of the court order had not been a mistake, neither had registration of a legal charge been.

Abduction – Child. The appellant father was successful in his appeal against the judge's decision to dismiss his application for the return of his two children to South Africa, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the evidence had not supported the judge's conclusions on which he had based his determination that article 13(b) had been established, and the judge had failed to analyse the nature and degree of any risk based on the situation, as it would be for the children, in the future.

Financial provision – Appeal. The wife's appeal against the decision of the judge to award her 50% of the net marital assets pursuant to the sharing principle was rejected. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that, while the judge's approach had been lacking in areas, his factual determinations were not incorrect. The husband's cross-appeal was allowed in part, as the judge's order requiring him to make payment of £20m to the wife by June 2019 was amended to allow for four annual payments of £5m.

Pension – Discrimination. The manner in which judges' and firefighters' pension scheme transitional provisions had been implemented had given rise to unlawful direct age discrimination, which could not be justified. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, further held that equal pay and indirect race discrimination claims were made out in the judges' case.

Document – Production. The evidence did not suggest that pre-action disclosure of medical records relating to a road traffic accident between the parties would assist in resolving the dispute without proceedings, nor lead to a saving of costs. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division dismissed the appellant's application for pre-action disclosure on the basis that it did not satisfy CPR 31.16(3)(d).

Child – Protection. The balance came down clearly and decisively against granting the applicant journalist permission to publish information about care proceedings brought by the respondent local authority in relation to two children. The Family Division also held that an injunction sought by the local authority preventing the journalist publishing or broadcasting any details of the children or the proceedings was not necessary to prevent what s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 prohibited.

Mental Health – Detention. Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 had no application in the case where the patient who, while resident at and in the care of a hospital, was granted leaves of absence to go on day trips in the custody of one or more members of the hospital staff. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the claimant's application for judicial review of the refusal of each of the defendants to fund his mother's travel costs under s 117 of the 1983 Act had been correctly dismissed.

Employment – Contract of service. The claimant was unsuccessful in his claim against his employer, the defendant NHS Trust, for breach of contract, specifically the obligation of trust and confidence. The Queen's Bench Division held that although the Maintaining High Professional Standards in the Modern NHS (MHPS) guidance was relevant, it was not contractually incorporated. Further none of the defendant's actions either singularly or cumulatively amounted to a breach of contract (mostly relating to the term of trust and confidence).

Attorney General – Superintendence function. The defendant Attorney General, in finding there was no need for a review of the sudden end of the prosecution cases against the claimants for murder, had not delegated his superintendence function to anyone and it was not arguable that he had failed to undertake proper inquiry. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the claimants' application for judicial review, further held that the Attorney General's reasons had been adequate and the decision had not been unfair.

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. The applicant trustee in bankruptcy's application for an order that two properties, and surpluses from their sale, be vested in him pursuant to s 320 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The Chancery Division held that the applicant lacked standing to apply for a vesting order. Further, in the circumstances, it would not be realistic to assume that the court would make a vesting order in favour of any applicant under the Act in relation to the properties themselves.