‘The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by a mother against an order secured during care proceedings by an unnamed local authority to request a French family court to assume jurisdiction of a case involving her son’s care under Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th August 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A local authority cannot seek to change the nationality of children in care without the matter being considered by the High Court, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th August 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Commercial Court (Jacobs J) has dismissed applications to dispute the English Court’s jurisdiction in respect of claims for damages and declarations of non-liability in respect of proceedings brought by the Defendants in Luxembourg claiming damages in excess of €68 million. The decision illustrates the English Court’s commercially-minded approach to the construction of exclusive jurisdiction clauses and to the provisions of the Brussels I Recast Regulation that confer priority on courts seised under those clauses.
Blackstone Chambers, 6th August 2020
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘Issue #35 of Spire Barristers’ Family Law Newsletter: edited by Connie Purdy and Taz Irshad; news and Case Reviews by Georgina Dalton.’
Spire Barristers, 22nd July 2020
Source: spirebarristers.co.uk
‘The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation is a charitable company with more than $4bn in assets helping children in developing countries. It was founded by Sir Christopher Hohn and Ms Jamie Cooper in 2002, but it became difficult to manage when their marriage broke down. These proceedings stem from the steps they took to resolve those difficulties. Specifically, they agreed that in exchange for a grant of $360 million to Big Win Philanthropy, a charity founded by Ms Cooper, she would resign as a member and trustee of CIFF.’
UKSC Blog, 29th July 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Complex commercial arrangements can generate difficulties for the parties where their obligations are set out in a multitude of related contracts or a single contract containing inconsistent dispute resolution clauses. It is not uncommon for parties to complex commercial contracts to find themselves arguing over the interpretation of inconsistent jurisdiction clauses which are either found in a single contract, or different but related contracts forming part of the same arrangements. Disagreements over the interpretation of jurisdiction clauses can arise in large-scale energy and infrastructure projects, and other types of arrangements where transactions usually take place under a master agreement. This note will explore the most common scenarios in which courts are often asked to interpret inconsistent dispute resolution clauses, with particular focus on the ‘centre of gravity’ approach adopted by courts.’
3PB, 27th July 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The Cape v Dring litigation concerns an attempt by a non-party to obtain copies of the trial bundle used during a six-week asbestos trial involving Cape which settled before judgment in early 2017. At first instance the Master granted the non-party permission to have copies of all documents, including the trial bundle of 5000 pages of disclosure, referred to at the trial. The Supreme Court confirmed in July 2019 that the non-party was entitled to written submissions, witness statements and expert reports under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, but remitted the question of what, if any, documents in the trial bundle the non-party should obtain to the original trial judge. On 16 July 2020 Picken J considered that question and held that Mr Dring was not entitled to receive any other documents.’
Henderson Chambers, 17th July 2020
‘Much has been written on the Supreme Court case of Bresco v Lonsdale and it has most recently been relied on by a party in the adjudication enforcement case of WRW Construction Ltd v Datblygau Davies Developments Ltd. However, as will be discussed in this blog, it was of limited assistance.’
Practical Law Construction Blog, 28th July 2020
‘A (A Child) (Rev 1) [2020] EWCA 731 (15 June 2020). This was an appeal by the secretary of state against a decision of the President of the Family Division concerning the exercise of the family court’s jurisdiction to make a female genital mutilation protection order (FGMPO) under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 Sch.2 Pt 1 para.1.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th July 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In this case the “court” in question is the Parole Board. The inverted commas are because one of the issues is whether the Board is, in fact, a court for these purposes. Mr Gourlay is a life sentence prisoner. On 10 March 2014 the Parole Board refused to recommend that he be transferred to open conditions (almost always an essential precondition to later release). The Secretary of State usually, but does not always, accept such recommendations. Mr Gourlay challenged the Board’s refusal to make a recommendation. In accordance with a published “litigation strategy” that it has had since 2013 the Board did not engage with that challenge. That strategy takes advantage of a practice encapsulated in a case concerning coroners, R (Davies) v Birmingham Deputy Coroner [2004] 1 WLR 2739, which is that courts and tribunals will not usually be ordered to pay costs provided they have maintained a neutral stance. Mr Gourlay succeeded in his challenge, but both the High Court, and the Court of Appeal, held that Davies applied to the Board, and so Mr Gourlay did not recover his costs. This meant, amongst other things, that his lawyers were only entitled to be paid at around a quarter to a third of the rate they would have received if party-party costs had been awarded in Mr Gourlay’s favour.’
UKSC Blog, 10th July 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Charles and Emma Villiers married in 1994. They moved to Scotland the following year and lived there throughout their married life. The couple separated in 2012, when the wife and the parties’ daughter left the former matrimonial home and moved to England, where the wife continues to reside. Mrs Villiers issued a divorce petition in July 2013 on the basis of her habitual residence for 12 months preceding the presentation of the petition.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 1st July 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘This appeal concerned the jurisdiction of an English court to make a maintenance order in favour of the wife (“W”) pursuant to s.27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (“MCA”) in circumstances where the parties lived for most of their marriage in Scotland and the divorce proceedings issued by the husband (“H”) were conducted in Scotland.’
Blackstone Chambers, 1st July 2020
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘This was an application by several defendants to a claim for breach of contract, conspiracy, breach of confidence and patent, copyright and unregistered design right infringement for security for costs. It was heard by Mr David Stone sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 1 May 2020. He gave an extemporary judgment on the day of the hearing and delivered detailed reasons on 24 June 2020.’
NIPC Law, 8th July 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘Challenges were brought by a contractor (JV) under sections 67 and 68(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) in respect of an addendum award (the Addendum) issued by an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) tribunal. The Addendum was issued following an application by the employer to correct a fourth partial award. JV’s challenges were dismissed and the judge gave helpful guidance as to the scope of AA 1996, ss 67 and 68 and the scope of a tribunal’s power to correct and/or interpret its award. Written by Simon Lofthouse QC and Zulfikar Khayum, barristers, at Atkin Chambers, and counsel for Qatar Foundation.’
Atkin Chambers, 6th July 2020
Source: www.atkinchambers.com
‘In this post, James Warshaw, an associate in the Dispute Resolution team at CMS, previews the decision which is awaited in the matter of Lehtimaki and Ors v Cooper, which concerns whether the court has jurisdiction to direct members of a charitable company on how to exercise their powers absent a breach of fiduciary duty.’
UKSC Blog, 3rd July 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Hazel Samuriwo, In-house Advocate at London Borough of Brent, details the measures available to protect young people over seventeen years of age.’
Family Law Week, 1st July 2020
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘In the recent case of Dr Ogunsanya and Taylor Woods Solicitors v General Medical Council [2020] EWHC 1500 (QB), Eady J rejected the Claimants’ application for an injunction against the General Medical Council (‘GMC’) preventing the GMC from investigating the actions of the First Claimant (who is dual qualified as a doctor and as a solicitor) on the basis that the GMC had no jurisdiction because he was acting in his capacity as a solicitor, and not as a doctor, at the time. In rejecting the application, Eady J held that the allegations, amounting as they did to potential allegations of dishonesty, did fall within the GMC’s jurisdiction given their potential to prejudice the reputation of the profession. That there might be an overlap with another regulatory regime (that of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (‘SRA’)) did not oust that jurisdiction.’
Old Square Chambers, 23rd June 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘Adjudication is a quick and comparatively cheap method of dispute resolution and for those reasons is attractive to insolvent companies seeking to recover debts. However, a respondent was likely to be able to restrain the insolvent company from referring the matter to adjudication on the basis that it would be futile to do so, since any positive decision was unlikely to be enforced as a result of the very fact of the company’s insolvency. Therefore, any award lacked practical utility. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Bresco v Lonsdale, that is no longer the case.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 17th June 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘A claim that a solicitor who is also a doctor provided dishonest advice to his clients can be subject to the General Medical Council’s (GMC) disciplinary process, the High Court has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 15th June 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025