Latest Cases

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Disclosure against parties to proceedings. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed an application by two Burmese men accused of murdering British citizens in Thailand to view a report compiled by a British police team relating to the Thai investigation. The court held that there was nothing in the data sought that would be of real value to the claimants, and that the objections raised to disclosure had been valid. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division made an emergency order in respect of a child who was the subject of an interim care order in favour of the local authority. In the order it provided that it was appropriate for the hospital to make decisions as to the with holding of serious medical treatment for the child in various different scenarios. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The applicant had sought committal orders against two CAFCASS officers and the solicitor who had represented his former partner in child arrangements order proceedings. The Family Division refused the applicant permission to proceed with his applications under FPR Pt 37 due to procedural defects. 

Police – Powers. The Queen's Bench Division answered questions posed by an appeal by way of case stated concerning the arrest of the appellant, where the arresting officer had been mistakenly informed that the highway in question was public. The court held that, among other things, the arresting officer's mistake had not placed her outside of the execution of her duty. 

Criminal evidence – Unreasonable verdict – Mutual corroboration. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal concerning whether a jury's verdicts were unreasonable by an appellant who went to trial on an indictment containing numerous charges relating to three principal complainers and was convicted of four charges (two rapes, one indecent assault and one assault) and acquitted of another thirteen charges in relation to the second complainer and convicted of all four charges (two rapes, one indecent assault and one assault) in relation to the third complainer, the court rejected the appellant's complaint that it was unreasonable for the jury to accept the second complainer's evidence on only four charges standing their apparent rejection of her evidence in respect of the other thirteen. 

Practice – Striking out. The Wrexham County Court held that the proceedings brought by the claimant were not a nullity in the sense of being incurably bad by reason of the fact that, when they were commenced, the cause of action was vested not in the claimant but in his trustee in bankruptcy. However, the continued conduct of the present proceedings by the claimant would be an abuse of process unless the irregularity in their constitution, namely, that the cause of action was not vested in the person pursuing them, was remedied. 

Practice – Evidence. The Chancery Division considered a case management decision made by the Deputy Master in the course of a dispute concerning the pensions scheme of British Airways plc. The court held that the Deputy Master had erred in not allowing expert evidence regarding actuarial issues to be admitted. 

Immigration – Removal. The appeal concerned the circumstances when, notwithstanding a person's right to an 'out-of-country' appeal under s 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, it was appropriate for his case to be dealt with in judicial review proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant Indian citizen's appeal, held that, in the circumstances, the deputy judge had been right to have refused the claimant permission to apply for judicial review of the challenged immigration decisions made by the defendant Secretary of State. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The Family Division had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear proceedings commenced by the local authority in respect of a 15 year old who had been in England for a total of four months, who had been taken into foster care within a month of his arrival, and whose mother wished for him to attend school in Zimbabwe. The court held that, while it could not determine the child's place of habitual residence on the facts, it had jurisdiction to hear the authority's application founded on the child's presence in England. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant father's appeal against the dismissal of his application for contact with his son, B, who was 12 years old. The court held that, in circumstances where the mother showed the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and B had expressed a wish to have no contact with the father, the judge had been entitled to conclude that contact would not have worked.