Latest Cases

Shipping – Charterparty. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appellant charterer's appeal, held that the arrest of the respondent owner's vessel, due to a dispute between the receiver of cargo and the sub-sub charterer, could not be regarded as having been occasioned by the charterer's agents in the sense in which that word had been used in the time charter. 

National Health Service – Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints. The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant wife of the deceased against a finding of the Court of Appeal that the Complaints Commissioner of Northern Ireland did not have the power to recommend monetary redress at all in a case where the Commissioner had found failings in the medical practice where the deceased had been treated. The court held, among other things, that it could not have been proper for the Commissioner to recommend a payment of money and to threaten to report on the respondent's failure to pay it. 

Commons – Registration. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal against the dismissal of their claim for judicial review of the defendant commons registration authority's decision refusing their application to register rights of common under the Commons Act 2006 on the basis that a right of common could not be created by prescription after 2 January 1970 over land that had been registered as common land under the Commons Registration Act 1965. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the First-tier Tribunal (Tax) (the FTT) had had no jurisdiction to make an express order that the costs between the parties be shared, as it had fallen within the scope of the prohibition under r 10 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 and neither of the exceptions, wasted costs or unreasonable behaviour were operating. 

Family proceedings – Care order. The Family Division granted a care order in respect of a Lithuanian child living in the United Kingdom, having found that the best option was for the child to remain in long-term foster care with his current carers. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant local authority's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision that advice given by a primary authority had been correct and confirming its direction stopping the authority from taking enforcement action with respect to the provision of sanitary appliances free of charge. The advice had not been correct and the error had been material. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court allowed the claimants' application to quash the decision of the inspector for the first defendant Secretary of State, allowing the second defendant's appeal and granting planning permission for an on-shore office and warehouse building. The inspector had not had due regard to the public sector equality duty and there had been a breach of natural justice/procedural fairness by failing to consider another site. 

European Union – Directives. The Court of Justice of the European Union determined that provisions of European Parliament and Council Directive (EU) 2014/40, which prohibited the placing on the market of tobacco products with a characterising flavour, were valid and dismissed the applicant's claim for a declaration of invalidity. 

Highway – Definitive map. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's challenge to the decision of the inspector for the defendant Secretary of State, confirming the local planning authority's order modifying the area definitive rights of way map to show footpaths, with a modification. The evidence provided a rational basis for the inspector's conclusion and his conclusion had not needed more extensive reasoning. 

Town and country planning – Building of special architectural or historic interest. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a challenge by way of judicial review regarding the proposed Ordsall Chord elevated railway in Manchester. Neither the planning inspector in recommending the scheme, nor the Secretaries of State in having approved the scheme, had failed to act consistently with a decision maker's statutory duties relating to listed buildings and conservation areas and nor had the Secretaries of State misunderstood or misapplied relevant national policy and guidance.