‘The High Court in Liverpool has refused to transfer one of the biggest claims ever filed in this country to the Rolls Building in London.’
Litigation Futures, 24th April 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The focus of the new Business & Property Courts (B&PC) structure on keeping cases in the regions and not transferring them to London unless necessary has seen a judge in Bristol refuse an application to move a piece of group litigation to the capital.’
Litigation Futures, 1st February 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Comments around the launch of the Business and Property Courts (BPC) underline the judicial service’s commitment to high-quality commercial litigation regardless of where a case is filed in England and Wales, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd November 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Maria Wright, PhD Student at the University of Bristol, addresses how courts must now approach Article 15 transfers of public law proceedings in the light of CJEU and Supreme Court judgments.’
Family Law Week, 9th August 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
In re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) (AIRE Centre and others intervening) [2016] UKSC 15
‘Two children, who like their parents were Hungarian nationals, were born in England and habitually resident in the United Kingdom, having lived with the same English foster carers for most of their lives, initially with the consent of their parents. The local authority sought a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 and, subsequently, an order for placement of the children with the foster carers with a view to their adoption pursuant to section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The mother, who had returned to Hungary and had a third child with the father, opposed the orders and applied under article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 for the proceedings to be transferred to Hungary. The Hungarian authorities supported her application, maintaining that only the Hungarian authorities could order the adoption of a Hungarian national minor. They proposed that upon return to Hungary the children would be placed with English speaking foster parents but maintain contact with their parents. The judge directed that both the care and placement order proceedings be transferred in accordance with article 15 on the ground that the Hungarian courts would be better placed to determine the welfare issues. The Court of Appeal decided, inter alia, that the placement order proceedings were outside the scope of article 15 by virtue of article 1(3)(b) of the Regulation and could not, therefore, be transferred to Hungary, but that, since the judge had not erred in ordering the transfer of the care proceedings, the placement order proceedings would be stayed even though they could not be transferred. ‘
WLR Daily, 13th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Hussain) v Parole Board of England and Wales [2016] EWHC 288 (Admin)
‘The claimant, an indeterminate sentence prisoner, was referred by the Secretary of State to the Parole Board for consideration of his suitability for transfer to open prison conditions for the remaining three years of his minimum custodial term (in accordance with the relevant National Offender Management Service guidance). The purpose of such a transfer was to enable the claimant to demonstrate during that period, and in those conditions, that he no longer posed a level of risk to the public that warranted further detention and could therefore be considered for release at, or shortly after, the expiry of his fixed tariff in 2017. The Board was obliged under the Parole Board Rules 2011 to consider the claimant’s suitability at an oral hearing within 26 weeks of receiving the referral and, although the case was made ready for listing in September 2014, it was only set down in the following February and subsequently heard in May 2015. The defendant accepted that the listing of oral hearings had been subject to substantial delays at the time due to a lack of resources but contended that the claimant had still been moved to open conditions some two years prior to the expiry of his tariff and therefore he had not lost the opportunity to show his suitability for release at the time of his tariff expiry date. The claimant brought a claim for judicial review, contending that the delay in listing the oral hearing was unlawful under common law and in breach of article 5.4 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as it had delayed his transfer to open prison conditions and consequently deprived him of the opportunity to demonstrate his suitability for release at, or shortly after, the expiry of his tariff.’
WLR Daily, 24th February 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Roger McCarthy QC and Mark Twomey, barrister, of Coram Chambers address the central point of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Re N (Children) [2016] UKSC 15.’
Family Law Week, 13th April 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Dawn Tighe considers the recent case of Re N Court of Appeal EWCA Civ 112 2015, determined by the Court of Appeal on 2nd November 2015 with regard to Article 15 applications.’
Park Square Barristers, 6th January 2016
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘A couple of recent cases have highlighted the issues involved in transferring County Court possession orders to the High Court for enforcement by High Court Enforcement Officers.’
Nearly Legal, 13th November 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Notwithstanding that concerns might be expressed in many parts of Europe about the law and practice in England and Wales in relation to non-consensual adoption where care proceedings involving foreign nationals were in contemplation, domestic law was not incompatible with the United Kingdom’s international obligations or, specifically, its obligations under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 6th August 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Arif v Zar and another [2012] EWCA Civ 986; [2012] WLR (D) 239
“In relation to a bankruptcy order, the court sitting in bankruptcy had to give consideration to the possibility that a person might attempt to use the protection of the order as a shield against the claims of their spouse for ancillary relief. Where there was credible evidence of that the court ought not to be afraid to use its powers to order full disclosure and to require the attendance and cross-examination of witnesses where necessary in order properly and fairly to determine an annulment application. The question of whether it was right to transfer an annulment application to be heard alongside an ancillary relief application in the Family Division depended upon the facts and was a matter of discretion for the registrar or judge asked to transfer it.”
WLR Daily, 18th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
DKH Retail Ltd v Republic (Retail) Ltd [2012] EWHC 877 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 109
“The current practice, in which applications to transfer cases to and from the Patents County Court were handled by judges of the court from which the case was to be transferred, was correct and in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules.”
WLR Daily, 3rd April 2012
Soure: www.iclr.co.uk
“Allocation and Transfer of Proceedings Order 2008.”
Judiciary of England and Wales, 6th November 2008
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024