UK Supreme Court Blog

EDITORS: Dan Tench, Emma Cross, Zainab Hodgson, Francesca Knight, James Warshaw and Natalie Haefner (CMS)
Hugh Tomlinson KC, Matthew Ryder KC, Nandini Bulchandani and Daniel Rudd (Matrix)

Starting on Monday 20 February 2012 is a one day hearing for In the Matter of S (a Child, in front of a panel of five (L Phillips, L Hale, L Mance, L Kerr, L Wilson). The case concerns the approach that the court ought to take to the summary applications under The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction when Article 13(b) is engaged; and the application of the guidance given in Re E [2011] UKSC 27. The Appellant mother and the Respondent father lived in Australia with their young son. The mother asserts that the father was a drug user, and that there were severe financial problems. In February 2011 she took the child to the UK, from where she originated, without the Respondent’s consent or knowledge. The father sought an order for the child’s return to Australia under the Hague Convention. The mother asserted that a return to Australia would cause that the child to be placed in an intolerable situation. The High Court refused to order the child’s return to Australia, finding that the exception provided for by Article 13(b) of the Convention was engaged and satisfied. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision and ordered the child’s return. The case concerns the approach that ought to be taken to the assessment of the evidence in such situations. The main questions before the Supreme Court are (i) as to whether, and if so in what circumstances, the Article 13(b) exception can be established on the basis of the subjective perceptions of the abducting parent; and (ii) the circumstances in which an appellate court is entitled to interfere with an assessment made by the judge at first instance.

Tuesday 21 February will see the beginning of a six day hearing for Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Commissioners of the Inland Revenue& anr in front of a seven judge panel ( L Hope, L Walker, L Brown, L Clarke, L Dyson, L Sumption, L Reed).  Almost all of the FII Claimants are members of the British American Tobacco group of companies. The challenge relates to the basic rule of UK corporation tax that UK companies are not subject to corporation tax on dividends received from other UK companies, while dividends received from non-UK companies are subject to the tax but carry a right to a credit equal to the amount of foreign tax paid.

Four linked cases will also be starting on 21 February in Court Room 2 in front of L Phillips, L Hale, L Mance, L Kerr, and L Wilson. Lukaszewski v The District Court in Torun, Pomiechowski v District Court of Legunica, R (Halligen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Rozanski v Regional Court 3 Penal Department Poland all concern time limits for appeals in extradition cases and what constitutes ‘good notice of appeal’.

On Wednesday 22 February 2012 the Supreme Court will hand down judgment in R v Peacock.

The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding:

R v Waya, heard 5 May 2011.

Flood v Times Newspapers, heard 17 – 18 Oct 2011.

Lehman Brothers International v CRC Credit Fund Ltd and GLC Investments PLC Sub Fund, heard 31 October – 3 November 2011.

Ministry of Defence v AB & Ors, heard 14 – 17 November 2011.

BAI Ltd v Thomas Bates and Son Ltd, BAI Ltd v Durham, Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd v Zurich Insurance, Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd v Zurich Insurance Company and Adur District Council and Ors, Independent Insurance Company Ltd v Fleming and Anor, Municipal Mutual Insurance Company v Zurich Insurance Company and Ors, Excess Insurance Company Ltd v Edwards, Excess Insurance Company Ltd v Akzo Nobel UK Ltd and Excess Insurance Company Ltd v Amec plc, heard 5 – 14 December 2011.

In the matter of Peacock, heard 14 December 2011.

Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. v E.N.E. Kos 1 Ltd, heard 12 – 15 January 2012.

Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership), heard 17 – 20 January 2012.

Stanford International Bank Ltd (acting by its joint liquidators) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office, heard 23 – 25 January 2012.

PP v Secretary of State for the Home Department, (formerly VV [Jordan]), PP v SSHD, W & BB v SSHD and Z, G, U & Y v SSHD, heard 30 – 31 January 2012.

Assange v The Swedish Judicial Authority, heard 1 – 2 February 2012.

R (KM) (by his mother and litigation friend JM) v Cambridgeshire County Council, heard 7 – 9 February 2012.