Re W (a child) (removal at birth: contact)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, refused the parent's appeal against an order made pursuant to s34(4) of the permitting the local authority to refuse contact with their baby which had been removed immediately after birth. The court held that a decision had to be taken there and then in emergency situations and it was unthinkable that it could interfere where the judge had had regard to the relevant factors.

Re TC and JC (Children: Relocation)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division allowed a mother's application to relocate her children to Australia, in circumstances where the court held that the impact of refusing the application, if favourable to the father, would bear far more heavily on the mother than the other way round.

Tewkesbury Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others

Town and country planning Development. The Administrative Court, in dismissing an application under s288 of the challenging the lawfulness of the grant of planning permission by the Secretary of State, held that the had not brought about a fundamental change in the proper approach to planning applications so as to vitiate the conclusions reached by the Secretary of State.

*Re J (children) (care proceedings: past 'possible perpetrators' in new family unit)

Care proceedings Non-accidental injuries. The Supreme Court held that a finding of a real possibility that a person had harmed a child in the past was not, by itself, sufficient to establish the likelihood that that person would cause harm to another child in the future. Accordingly, by itself, an earlier finding of harm could not be relied upon to establish a likelihood of harm in the future for the purposes of s31 of the .

Re W (a child) (parental responsibility order: inter-relationship with direct contact)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the father's appeal against a refusal of his application for parental responsibility once again underlined the principle that applications for contact and for parental responsibility were not inter-linked.

Pall Mall Investments v Camden London Borough Council

Rates Rateable occupation. The local rating authority demanded the payment of business rates by the appellant. The appellant contended that it was not liable as it was not in occupation and produced a document headed 'lease' in evidence.The judge found the appellant liable. The appellant appealed by way of case stated. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to conclude that he could not attach sufficient weight to the purported lease to swing the evidential burden to the authority to establish that the lease was a forgery or sham.

A v B

Employment Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the employment tribunal had been correct to give permission to the employer to rely on the employee's spent conviction at the hearing for the latter's claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination as it had applied the correct legal test for determining the relevance of the evidence.

A Primary Care Trust v LDV (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) and others

Mental health Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection held that a patient, L, was being deprived of her liberty. The court gave guidance as to the information which was relevant in the circumstances of the instant case when assessing whether L had capacity to consent to her accommodation.

A Local Authority v K (by the Official Solicitor) and others

Sterilisation Mentally handicapped person. The Court of Protection made a best interests determination in relation to issues of contraception for, and sterilisation of, K, a 21 year old women who was born with Down's Syndrome.

R (on the application of Zacchaeus 2000 Trust) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Social security Housing benefit. The Administrative Court, in dismissing an application for judicial review of the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) (Amendment) Order 2012, , held that the Order was neither ultra vires nor in breach of the .