Latest Cases

Adoption – Practice. The Family Division considered two cases, which were heard together as they raised common issues, involving babies born to mothers from Eastern Europe, but relinquished at birth for adoption in the United Kingdom. Among other things, the court considered what jurisdiction the court had to have to make orders facilitating such placements and what factors had to be taken into account when making decisions about relinquished babies, the possible outcomes and the procedures that should be followed. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant had breached disclosure requirements in relation to the terms of a proprietary and freezing injunction relating to properties which the court had found he had had a beneficial interest in. He fell to be sentenced at a further hearing. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court allowed the claimant local planning authority's challenge to the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, granting outline planning permission to the second defendant developer to build up to 85 dwellings and associated works. Because of the harm to designated heritage assets, limb 2 of para 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework fell to be considered first and the inspector had only undertaken the weighted exercise in limb 1. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division ordered a re-consideration of an earlier fact-finding hearing, in which it had been concluded that a mother had caused the injuries to her 10-month-old son, where aspects of newly obtained medical evidence cast a sufficiently fresh perspective on the evidence previously adduced as to warrant review. 

Water supply – Charges. The Chancery Division ruled on charges for water and sewerage services supplied to properties inhabited by the defendant local authority's tenants. The court ruled that, among other things, between 2000 and 2013, the defendant had charged the claimant more than the maximum charge allowed under the Water Resale Order 2006. 

Landlord and tenant – Repair. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal against the dismissal of her claim against the defendant for damages under s 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, held that the purpose of s 4(4) of the Act was not to create a strict liability, but to extend the application of s 4(1) of the Act to relevant defects which were outwith its scope and, therefore, to bring them within the scope of the section as a whole. Its purpose was not to confer an additional or alternative route to recovery where the claim under s 4(1) failed on its facts because s 4(2) was unsatisfied. 

Pleading – Amendment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the Unitech parties' appeal against the refusal to allow amendments to their pleadings in relation to five intended defences and allowed the lenders' cross-appeal against the refusal to order a payment into court or an interim payment. In respect of the latter, it was appropriate in the circumstances to make an order in line with the lenders' preference for a requirement for a payment into court. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection determined that it was in the best interests of the first respondent, a 74-year-old woman with dementia, to live at a care home, rather than returning to her home. The interference with her rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights caused by that decision was prescribed by law, proportionate to the identified risks and for a permitted purpose. 

Sentence – Sexual offences against children. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment for 13 counts of indecent assault, committed by a father against his daughter, contrary to s 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, had been unduly lenient. The sentence would be quashed and substituted for a total term of eight years' imprisonment. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The Commercial Court made findings, overall in the claimant Portuguese bank's favour, in its claim for declarations that the defendant Portuguese transport companies' obligations under long-term interest rate swaps constituted legal, valid and binding obligations, enforceable in accordance with their respective terms. It rejected the defendants' defences that they lacked capacity to enter into the swaps, that art 3(3) of the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980 applied and that the bank had acted in breach of its duties under the Portuguese Securities Code.