Re P-S (Children) (Care proceedings: Oral evidence of separately represented child)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The appellant 15 year old boy had wanted to give evidence at care proceedings which were being conducted with respect to him. He expressed his desire to return to his mother in his written application to give evidence. The judge held that any benefit she would obtain from his evidence would be outweighed by the detriment to him of giving evidence. A care order was made. The boy appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing his appeal, held that a child did have the right to be heard in proceedings conducted in England but did not have the right to give evidence. Further, there was no rebuttable presumption that the mature child's wishes should prevail in considering an application for a care order.

* Skatteverket v PFC Clinic AB

European Union Taxation. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art132(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive (EC) 2006-112 (on the common system of value added tax). The request had been made in proceedings between the Skatteverket (the Swedish tax authority), which was competent, in Sweden, to collect VAT and PFC Clinic AB concerning VAT due for the accounting period May 2007.

Magical Marking Ltd and another v Ware & Kay LLP and others

Costs Order for costs. In earlier proceedings, the court held that only a modest proportion of the claimant's claim of negligence against the defendant solicitors firm (the firm) had been proved. In considering costs, the Chancery Division, held that the firm ought to be regarded in substance, as the successful party and was entitled to 85% of its costs.

Sycamore Bidco Ltd v Breslin and another

Costs Order for costs. The claimant company had been awarded damages against the defendants for breach of warranty in the main proceedings. It had failed on other claims made in the action. In determining costs, the Chancery Division held that an issue-based costs order would be made in respect of the major issues on which the claimant had lost.

Wilson v Haden

Costs Order for costs. The Queen's Bench Division, in awarding the claimant 95% of his costs in an action for personal injury, held that, in the unusual circumstances of the case, it was right to depart to some extent from the usual rule that costs followed the event. However small account would be taken of the fact that the defendant had failed to act in a reasonable manner in relation to alternative dispute resolution.

Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd

Data protection Processing of information. The Court of Appeal, allowing the claimant's appeal, held that, whilst he had been entitled to damages for distress caused by the inappropriate processing of data by the defendant, those damages would be limited to 750 where the use had been limited and had not led to any loss of reputation.

First Subsea Ltd v Balltec Ltd

Document Admissibility in evidence. The Patents Court considered two applications made in the course of proceedings. It held that, in the circumstances, both applications would be allowed, permitting the adducing of additional witness evidence and the amendment of the defendants' case.

M & C Energy Group Ltd v St Cuthbert's Mill

Practice Summary judgment. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the defendant company's appeal against the granting of summary judgment in favour of the claimant company in relation to sums due under a contract relating to the cost control of energy and water supplies, held that, on the facts, the judge had been right to find that the defendant had had no defence which had a real prospect of success.

Hill and another v John Barnsley and Sons Ltd and other companies

Negligence Duty to take care. The claimant executrixes of the estate of a man who died of malignant mesothelioma issued proceedings against his employer in the 1960s and 1970s. They alleged negligence in respect of exposure to asbestos in course of deceased's employment. The Queen's Bench Division held that, even by the standards of the times, the employer had negligently failed to comply with its duty of care.

First Subsea Ltd v Balltec Ltd and others

Disclosure and inspection of documents Production of documents. The Chancery Division dismissed the defendants' application for specific disclosure made during the trial as it was not necessary or in the interests of fairness to interfere with the smooth course of the trial by ordering disclosure during the trial itself.