Latest Cases

Family Proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a father's appeal against the recorder's dismissal of his application to enforce indirect contact with his children. The recorder could not be criticised for having rejected an application for 'enforcement' which, in the circumstances, had not been capable of effective enforcement. 

Warrant – Search warrant. The Divisional Court quashed some of the warrants issued against the claimants, but dismissed their judicial review proceedings concerning others. It held that a claimant was not necessarily entitled to a determination of the Administrative Court of a warrant's validity and the determination of such issues did not necessarily preclude the making of an order which led to an application under s 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. 

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy High Court granted the applicant discharged bankrupt permission to bring an action against the respondent, the released joint trustee in bankruptcy, under s 304 of the Insolvency Act 1986 for an order that he repay, restore or account for money or pay a sum by way of compensation in respect of misfeasance or breach of fiduciary duty in carrying out his functions as trustee. There was evidence to suggest that the applicant had a reasonably meritorious cause of action against the respondent on the basis of his having incurred and paid legal fees in excess of what he had had authority to incur. 

Personal injury – Vicarious liability – Employer and employee. Sheriff Court: Refusing an appeal against a sheriff's decision by a pursuer who sustained injuries as a result of an accident in the course of his employment with the defenders when a hammer a manager had thrown at another employee struck him on the head, the court concluded that the sheriff had not erred in deciding that the defenders were not vicariously liable for the act of the manager, their employee, as it could not be said that his reckless act occurred in the course of his employment. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division refused the father's application for the summary return of his son C to Saudi Arabia on the basis that C wished to remain with the mother who was determined to remain in the United Kingdom and if C was returned, Sharia law would possibly prevent the mother taking C out of the jurisdiction. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for her extradition to Romania to serve a sentence of four years' imprisonment for drug offences. She would be entitled to a retrial, her extradition would not constitute inhuman or degrading punishment, and there had been no disproportionate interference with her and her children's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division held that, on the facts, it had jurisdiction under, alternatively arts 4, 5 or 7 of Council Regulation (EC) 4/2009 in a case relating to maintenance obligations for a wife and child. Further orders were made. 

Mortgage – Charge by way of legal mortgage. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant bank's appeal against the dismissal of its claim against the defendant, save in one respect, for the repayment of a sum which was alleged to have been due from him under a mortgage. Completion of a re-mortgage transaction ordinarily included the redemption of the prior charges and the discharge of the existing borrowings was a necessary component of completion. There was nothing in the terms of the contract or the instructions to the solicitors to displace that in the present case. 

Practice – Offer to settle. The Admiralty Court considered an application for a declaration that proceedings concerning a collision between two vessels had been compromised by the claimants' acceptance of an offer made by the defendants. The court declared, among other things, that the claim form had not been validly served and the court had no jurisdiction to try the claim. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The Family Division held that there was no substance in any of the mother's suggested 'defences' or exceptions to an order for summary return of a child. The child had to go back to his country of habitual residence for the courts there to resolve the dispute about where he should live and with whom, as well as the mother's application to deprive the father of parental responsibility.