Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by August Srotck KG against a decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office concerning an application by that company for registration of a figurative sign as an European Union trade mark. 

Discrimination – Nationality, on the grounds of. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal against the rejection of their judicial review challenge of the government's scheme to provide assistance to Afghan locally employed staff who had been employed during the military engagement in Afghanistan. The Divisional Court had been correct to find that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims of discrimination on grounds of nationality under Pts 3 and 5 of the Equality Act 2010 and to have rejected the discrimination claim brought under the common law. The grant of declaratory relief rather than quashing the scheme had been an exercise of the court's discretion that could not be faulted. 

Building contract – Liability for loss or damage. The Technology and Construction court made preliminary rulings in a dispute concerning repair works to be carried out at a hotel and apartment complex which the parties had contracted to develop. The court ruled on, among other things, whether the contract between the parties including assumed liabilities included incomplete work and/or defects for which the defendant was liable. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The Privy Council dismissed both an appeal and a cross-appeal concerning the respondent's dismissal from his employment with the appellant. It considered whether there had been constructive dismissal, whether the respondent's conduct had justified dismissal, and whether the Supreme Court of Mauritius had miscalculated the remuneration package. 

Bankruptcy – Property available for distribution. The Bankruptcy High Court allowed an application for relief by trustees in the bankruptcy of DD, who had made his living from residential and commercial property and was indebted to around the sum of £2.8m. The court held that money in certain accounts belonged to DD, that a flat which had been purchased out of money from one of the accounts was a bankruptcy asset, and that the transfer of shares in a company controlled by DD had been a sham. 

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. 

Sentencing – Road traffic offences – Causing death by dangerous driving. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing a Crown appeal against the 4-year sentence of imprisonment, discounted from 6 years, which was imposed on a respondent who pled guilty to an offence of causing death by dangerous driving, the contention being that the sentence was unduly lenient, the court concluded that the judge's selection of a headline sentence of 6 years' imprisonment could not be said to fall outwith the range of disposals open to him, nor had he erred in selecting the level of discount which he did.