Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division ruled, on a fact finding hearing, that there was insufficient evidence to prove a local authority's case that it had been the intention of the respective parents of four children, who had been taken from the United Kingdom to Turkey and who were subsequently made wards of court, to take them to a war zone in Syria controlled by ISIS and to remain there on a permanent basis. 

Practice – Striking out. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against the dismissal of its application for an order striking out the claimant's claim concerning his membership of a pension scheme or, alternatively, for summary judgment dismissing the claim, on the ground that the particulars of claim disclosed no reasonable ground for bringing the claim, and the claim had no real prospect of success. In the circumstances, it was inconceivable that the claimant would succeed at trial. 

Criminal law – Grievous bodily harm. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a total sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for violent disorder, wounding with intent and aggravated burglary, had been unduly lenient. A total sentence of 16 years' imprisonment would be imposed in the circumstances. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection allowed an application by the applicant health trusts for an order setting out the procedure to be followed when the respondent, C, gave birth. C suffered from long-standing bipolar affective disorder and was in the last stages of pregnancy. The court held that the care plan met her best interests and the declarations sought would be granted. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed two appeals that concerned the rejection of claims for asylum. In neither case had there been an obligation on the Secretary of State to have conducted further enquiries to verify the authenticity of the documents on which the appellants had sought to rely. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing an appeal by a mother against a special guardianship order in respect of her son, made in favour of her sister and brother in law, held that, in the circumstances of the case, the judge had been entitled to reach the conclusion that the order had been a necessary and proportionate interference with family rights to ensure that the son's welfare needs were met. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The Family Division declined to stay or dismiss the wife's application for maintenance, including interim relief, pursuant to s 27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, in circumstances where the husband had, a few months previously, lodged a writ for divorce in Scotland. The Scottish court had not been seised of maintenance at the date upon which the wife had issued her application and the present court had priority. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the wife's appeal in respect of the construction of a consent order, by which her claim for financial remedy orders against her former husband was compromised, held that the judge had been correct to have rejected the wife's case on construction and to have granted the declaration she had. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Default. The Technology and Construction Court interpreted a preliminary issue in favour of the claimants, MEL. The phrase 'deliberate or fraudulent non-disclosure' had to involve dishonesty. MEL's decision not to disclose something that had been the result of an honest, but mistaken, belief that the fact or document did not need to be disclosed, was not enough to allow the insurers to avoid the policy. 

Insolvency – Transaction at undervalue. The Chancery Division ruled on an application by the first respondent's trustee in bankruptcy, challenging transactions that the first respondent had entered into in 2010-11 in relation to a property he owned, the first respondent having subsequently been adjudged bankrupt, including a trust deed and consent order disposing of ancillary relief proceedings brought by the first respondent's wife. It held that one of the charges was a sham and so a nullity, but that a second charge had not been proved to be either a sham or a preference within the meaning of s 340 of the Insolvency Act 1986, and the challenge to the trust deed and consent order also failed.