Share it
With the Supreme Court not sitting next week in the first week of the new Trinity term, it gives us a great opportunity to look ahead and highlight some of the more interesting appeals to watch out for this term.
On 8 June 2015 the Court will hear the conjoined appeals of Sharland v Sharland; Gohil v Gohil. These cases have drawn a lot of attention from the family law community as they raise the issue of non-disclosure in divorce proceedings. In Sharland the non-disclosure related to the appellant’s husband taking part in secret active preparations for an initial public offering of a successful company, of which he owned two-thirds. The appellant argued that the fraudulent non-disclosure of these negotiations affected their agreement and she would entitled to a substantially larger settlement if they had been disclosed. Gohil similarly wished to set aside her consent order on the basis that her husband, who was subsequently convicted of money laundering, failed to disclose the true extent of his financial assets. This will be the first time that the court has had to decide whether spouses who are dishonest or conceal their assets to reduce the pay-out in a divorce should be allowed to get away with it.
On 22 June 2015 the Court will hear the appeal of R (Bancoult No 2) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which seeks to challenge the decision of the House of Lords dismissing an appeal against the 2004 Order reinstating the full immigration controls of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) Constitution Order and Immigration Ordinance 1971. The appellant originally challenged s 4 of the Ordinance which made it unlawful for someone to be in the BIOT without a permit and gave the Commissioner the power to order the removal of those without a permit. Although successful in this challenge in 2002, his challenge to the reinstating of the full immigration controls was dismissed by the House of Lords in 2008. He believes the non-disclosure of documents leading to the restoration of the controls before his case significantly impacted the decision and therefore seeks an order setting aside the judgment.
As well as the new appeals coming to the Supreme Court we also look forward to the decisions in cases such as Beghal v DPP regarding the Terrorism Act 2000, Sch 7, and whether it engages the ECHR, Arts 5, 6, and 8. It involved the appellant being stopped and searched upon arrival to East Midlands Airport and subsequently questioned by Police Officers from Leicestershire Constabulary after visiting her husband who was being held in French custody in relation to terrorist offences.
The court will return on Monday 8th June. The Privy Council, however, returned this week to hear the appeal of Hickox & Ors v Brilla Capital Investment Master Fund SPC Limited & Ors (Anguila) on Tuesday regarding whether the orders made by the trial judge were irrational and such that no reasonable judge could have made and therefore should be set aside. This will heard in Court 3 from 10.30am. On Wednesday it will also heard the appeal of The National Housing Trust v Y.P. Seaton & Associates Company Ltd (Jamaica) concerning an arbitration agreement to resolve outstanding issues related to a property dispute. This will be heard in Court 3 from 10am.
A full list of all of the cases due to be heard in the Trinity term can be found here.
