Re O-C (Children) (Interim Care Order: Jurisdiction)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge had erred in making an interim care order in regard to children that had been taken out of the jurisdiction and then ordering their return. It was essential that any order for the return of children had the effect of returning them to the status quo, which, in the instant case, had been to the care of the mother.

AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors

Solicitor Duty. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge, in deciding certain preliminary issues in a bank's claim against the defendant firm of solicitors for breach of trust in connection with a re-mortgage transaction, had been entitled to find that the solicitors had acted in breach of trust in failing to use the claimant's advance to fully discharge the prior charge on the property, but had erred in finding that the breach was limited to the amount of the shortfall which would have been necessary to fully discharge the prior charge.

Kudos Catering (UK) Ltd v Manchester Central Convention Complex Ltd

Contract Construction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the claimant's appeal held that, on the proper construction of an agreement between the parties, liability for the claimant's loss of profits had not been excluded.

PS v LP

Mental health Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection refused to direct that contact be immediately restored to the patient's husband or family, in circumstances where she had broken off all contact with them shortly before suffering the cerebral aneurysm which had resulted in her loss of capacity.

Hardy v Hardy and another

Will Construction of will. The deceased had three natural children, including the claimant. The claimant, who had been adopted by the deceased's brother, brought the instant proceedings seeking the court's interpretation of the deceased's will. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of the will, B was to be considered as one of the children of the deceased and was entitled to a one-third share of the residuary estate.

*Lockyer and another v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

Inheritance tax Business property relief. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against the decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) that the testatrix's 25% beneficial interest in certain property which had been used as a holiday letting business had not been disqualified from being relevant business property by s 105(3) of the Inheritance Act 1984. The tribunal decided that the FTT had misdirected itself in its application of the relevant test in relation to whether the property in question consisted 'wholly or mainly of ... making or holding investments'.

Re AW (permanent vegetative state)

Medical treatment Withdrawal of treatment. The Court of Protection considered an application by an NHS Trust in respect of a 57 year old lady who was in a permanent vegetative state. The court granted a declaration that it was was lawful and in AW's best interests to withdraw active medical treatment, including specifically artificial nutrition and hydration, albeit that that would lead to AW's death.

Bank of Scotland v Watson and another

Pleading Striking out. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, reversed a decision rejecting an application to strike out the defendants' defence and counterclaim and refused to allow an amended defence and counterclaim to be advanced.

Goodman and another v Goodman and another

Executor and administrator Executor. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claimants' appeal, held that s50 of the applied in the case of a person named as an executor but who had not been granted probate.

Paynter and another v Hinch

Will Validity. The deceased had made a number of wills, including a will in 2004, under which one of her children, F, was appointed as the sole executor and the beneficiary of the whole of the estate, with a gift over in default to his siblings, the claimants, S and V. The claimants brought a claim challenging the validity of the 2004 will. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that, on the evidence, the 2004 will was valid.