Latest Cases

Practice – Family proceedings. In making findings of fact that the appellant had been controlling and had raped the respondent mother, the judge had erred by failing to consider all the evidence when making findings about the credibility of the parties. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowing the appellant's appeal, held that the judge's findings could not withstand scrutiny when examined against the backdrop of the whole of the evidence.

Extradition – Extradition order. The district judge had been wrong to find that the appellant was a fugitive. Accordingly, his conclusions on both s 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 and art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were fundamentally undermined. The Administrative Court so ruled, in allowing the appellant's appeal against the district judge's decision, ordering her extradition to France in respect of a conviction in 2001 on five charges of buying, possessing, trafficking, importing and smuggling 1400 doses of LSD from the Netherlands. In so doing, the court considered the proper approach to determining whether a person was a 'fugitive'.

Contract – Holiday. The appellant's appeal against the respondent tour operator for damages in circumstances where she had been raped and assaulted by a hotel employee while on holiday in Sri Lanka, following a contract for a package holiday with the respondent, was referred by the Supreme Court to the Court of Justice of the European Union for determination of certain questions in order to determine the appeal. The Supreme Court sought an answer on, among other things, whether in the circumstances of the case, where there had been a failure to perform or an improper performance of the obligations arising under the contract of an organiser or retailer with a consumer to provide a package holiday to which Council Directive (EEC) 90/314 applied: (i) there was scope for the application of the defence set out in the second part of the third alinea to art 5(2) of that directive, and if so, (ii) by which criteria the national court was to assess whether that defence applied.

Company – Registration. The defendant company's appeal against the findings of an arbitrator failed, in a dispute concerning the effects on the contract between the parties of the striking-off of the claimant company from the register of companies. The Commercial Court held that the arbitrator had been correct to conclude that the defendant's termination did not fall to be re-assessed retrospectively.

War pension – Claim. The appellant's claim for benefit under the Armed Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2011 as the long-term partner of the deceased, a serving member of the scheme, was refused on the grounds that, whilst an unmarried dependant could make a claim, the appellant had been unable as she had remained married to her long-time estranged husband. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowing the appeal, held that the discrimination in the instant case had not been reasonable.

Land registration – Overriding interest. An application by the claimant property owners to have the benefit of a right of way removed on the grounds of proprietary estoppel failed as against the defendants. The Chancery Division held that the claimants, by failing at the earliest opportunity to take steps to have the right of way removed from the register exposed themselves to the risk that their unprotected and unimplemented agreement with the defendant's predecessor in title would cease to be enforceable.

Food and drugs – Food unfit for human consumption. The Supreme Court referred two questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, in a dispute concerning the available means of challenging a decision that a slaughtered carcass was unfit for human consumption. The questions were: (i) whether Regulation (EC) 854/2004 and Regulation (EC) 882/2004 precluded a procedure whereby, pursuant to s 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990, a Justice of the Peace decided on the merits of the case and on the basis of the evidence of experts called by each side whether a carcass fails to comply with food safety requirements; and (ii) whether Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 mandated a right of appeal in relation to a decision of an official veterinarian, under art 5.2 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004, that the meat of a carcass was unfit for human consumption and, if it did, what approach should be applied in reviewing the merits of the decision taken by the OV on an appeal.

Mental health – Detained patient. There was nothing in the Supreme Court decision in Secretary of State for Justice v MM (M)[2019] 2 All ER 749, or the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (in the light of that decision), which would prevent the Court to Protection from authorising a deprivation of liberty in the present case, concerning two respondents who had been admitted to psychiatric units, but were considered for named placements, which included the deprivation of their liberty. The court held that, under the Mental Health Act 1983, as interpreted in M, there was no power to deprive the patient of his/her liberty, but that that did not prevent MCA 2005 powers being used. Accordingly, the court allowed two local authorities' applications, under MCA 2005, for authorisations relating to the proposed care plans, including the deprivation of their liberty. The court held that the respondents had no capacity to consent to the relevant care plans and that it was in their best interests to be allowed to live at the named placements, and to be deprived of their liberty.

Criminal law – Conspiracy. There could be a fair trial of a corporate defendant for conspiracy where its guilt depended on the guilt of an individual – its directing mind and will – in circumstances where the individual was neither indicted as a co-conspirator nor otherwise available to give evidence at the trial. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant company's renewed application for leave to appeal against its conviction for conspiracy to corrupt.

Libel and slander – Defamatory statement. The claimant's claim for slander and trespass to the person, arising from an incident at the self-service check out area at a Tesco store in Lewisham, in which a customer assistant had allegedly accused her of being a 'thief', was dismissed. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant, who had a graduate diploma in legal practice, had not discharged the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that her version of events was correct. The court further held that, even if the words complained of had been spoken, the claimant had been unable to establish the threshold requirement of 'serious harm', within the meaning of s 1 of the Defamation Act 2013.