Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. The respondent applied for reconsideration of two orders that, first, discharged him as his daughter's deputy for property and affairs and, secondly, appointed a panel deputy to act in his place. The Court of Protection, in setting aside the orders and reinstating the respondent as his daughter's deputy for property and affairs, held that the respondent had not had behaved, or proposed to behave, in a way that contravened the authority conferred on him by the court, or was not in his daughter's best interests. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The Chancery Division considered the scope of the powers of the trustees of the pension scheme of the charity Barnardo's. It held that, among other things, the trustees could not replace the Retail Prices Index, by which increases to payments under the scheme were calculated, so long as it remained an officially published index. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The case concerned proceedings, under the court's inherent jurisdiction and under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, in respect of two children. A female genital mutilation protection order had been made in the standard terms and the children had been made wards of court. The mother was directed to take all reasonable steps to arrange for the children's return from Sudan to the United Kingdom. By the time of the present hearing, the mother accepted that she had not complied with the order. The Family Division made an order, which was to include provisions identified by the parties concerning arrangements to facilitate the children's return. 

Pension – Equal treatment in employment and occupation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed two appeals against decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, holding, in respect of the first appeal, among other things, that, at the time of the first appellant's service as a part-time recorder before the date for the transposition of Council Directive (EC) 97/81 into domestic law, he had acquired no pension rights and could not do so retroactively. As to the second appeal, it held, among other things, that para 18 of Sch 9 to the Equality Act 2010 was not incompatible with Council Directive (EC) 2000/78. 

European Union – Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that, on the proper construction of art 25(6) of Council Directive (EC) 95/46, Commission Decision (EC) 2000/520, which found that the United States ensured an adequate level of data protection, was invalid. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 63 TFEU. The references had been made in proceedings between Mr Miljoen, X and Société Générale SA and the Netherlands State Secretary for Finance, concerning withholding tax levied by that authority on Netherlands-sourced dividends distributed to the applicants in the main proceedings. 

European Union – Police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. The Court of justice of the European Union refused to annul Council Implementing Decision(EU) 2014/26 on the basis that the council had not committed any breach of the treaties or any essential procedural requirements. 

European Union – Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 4(1)(a) and 28(1), (3) and (6) of Directive (EC) 95/46. The request had been made in proceedings between Weltimmo, a company which had its registered office in Slovakia, and the Hungarian data protection authority concerning a fine imposed by the latter for infringement of Hungarian Law CXII (on the right to self-determination as regards information and freedom of information), which had transposed Directive 95/46 into Hungarian law. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Annex IIB to Council Directive (EC) 1999/13 (Directive 1999/13). The request was made in proceedings between Nannoka Vulcanus Industries BV (Nannoka) and the Executive Board of the Provincial Committee for the Region of Gelderland; (the Board), concerning the Board's order requiring Nannoka to discontinue and rectify, on pain of imposition of periodic penalties, its infringement of the Netherlands legislation transposing Directive 1999/13. 

Minor – Medical treatment. The Family Division granted the claimant NHS Trust's application for a declaration that it would not be unlawful to withdraw medical support devices which were keeping an 11-year-old boy alive where, on the evidence, he was dying and there was no hope of any intervention which could save his life.