Latest Cases

Feeds

R (on the application of O and the child's mother and litigation friend Ms PO) v Lambeth London Borough Council

Local authority – Statutory powers. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision, refusing to provide accommodation and support to the claimant and her mother, a Nigerian overstayer, under the provisions of s 17 of the Children Act 1989. The authority's assessing social worker had been entitled not to be satisfied that the family had been destitute and that they could be accommodated by others. 

Pillbox 38 (UK) Ltd v Secretary of State for Health

European Union – Directives. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling in proceedings between Pillbox 38 (UK) Ltd and the Secretary of State for Health in the United Kingdom, concerning the validity of art 20 of Directive 2014/14/EU in the context of the legality of the 'intention and/or obligation' of the UK government to implement that directive. The Court decided that there was no factor of any kind as to affect the validity, in whole or in part, of art 20 of Directive 2014/14/EU. 

Iqbal v Procurator Fiscal, Dumfries

Iqbal v Procurator Fiscal, Dumfries 

Mendes v Hochtief (UK) Construction Ltd

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division allowed an appeal from a decision of a recorder, refusing to award a fixed-advocacy fee on the basis that the case had settled. It had not strained the language of CPR 45.29C to conclude that the case was one where the claim had been 'disposed of at trial', albeit by way of settlement rather than judgment. 

R (on the application of The British Medical Association) v General Medical Council

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary proceedings. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant British Medical Association's application for judicial review, held that para 6(b) of the Schedule to the General Medical Council (Legal Assessor and Legally Qualified Persons) Rules Order of Council 2015, SI 2015/1958, which provided that a legally qualified tribunal chair did not need to advise other panel members on any question of law in the presence of the parties after deliberations had begun, was neither contrary to the requirements of art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights or common law fairness, nor otherwise unlawful. 

Re The Copenhagen Reinsurance Company (UK) Ltd and another

Insurance – Transfer of long-term insurance business. The Companies Court granted an order, among other things, sanctioning an insurance business transfer scheme to transfer the applicant company, The Copenhagen Reinsurance Company (U.K) Ltd's entire insurance business to another company in the Enstar group. 

CW, petitioner

Judicial review – Foster carer – Deregistration. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a petitioner who was jointly registered with her husband as a foster carer by the respondent local authority, and who sought reduction of the respondents' decisions to deregister her and her husband following the respondents' own investigation of serious allegations about the husband's conduct made by a child who had been in the petitioner and her husband's care (the police having investigated but taken no further action), the court rejected the petitioner's contentions that reduction of the respondents' decisions should be granted because they had failed to adequately take into account her blameless position and had failed to discuss with her the possibility of a variation of the joint registration. 

Beattie, petitioner

Prisoner – Rehabilitation. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a prisoner who was subject to an order for lifelong restriction with a punishment part of 7 years' imprisonment and who sought judicial review of a failure by the Scottish Ministers to assess him for rehabilitative course work and their associated policy, the court rejected the petitioner's contentions that by failing to assess him for rehabilitative course work and by adopting policy they had in prioritising assessments for such course work the respondents had failed in their duty to provide him with a reasonable opportunity to rehabilitate himself and demonstrate to the Parole Board at point of his punishment part expiry date that he no longer represented an unacceptable danger to the public and that those failings constituted breaches of their duties at common law and under arts 5 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Borealis Polyolefine Gmbh v Bundesminister fur Land - und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt and Wasserwirtschaft and other cases

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling confirming the validity of art 15(3) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to art 10a of Council Directive (EC) 2003/87 in so far as that provision precluded emissions from electricity generators from being taken into account in the determination of the maximum annual amount of allowances. However, the Court decided that art 4 of, and Annex II to, Commission Decision 2013/448/EU concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with art 11(3) of Directive 2003/87 were invalid. 

Bett Homes Ltd v Wood and others

Pension scheme – Changes to administration of scheme. Court of Session: In a special case in which a company and the trustees of the company pension scheme, who had been unable to discover sufficient evidence to demonstrate that in 1992 decisions in respect of changes to escalation of benefits and equalisation of pension date were made and recorded in accordance with the requirements of a clause making provision for amendment of the rules of the scheme, invited the court to decide whether it could be inferred that in 1992 the trustees exercised powers under another clause to apply special terms, both in respect of escalation and equalisation, that the company consented thereto and that intimation thereof was made to members in accordance with that clause, the court answered the question in relation to escalation in the affirmative (with a reservation) and the question in relation to equalisation in the negative (with an exception). 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

Greetings from India

Chair of the Bar finds common ground on legal services between our two jurisdictions, plus an update on jury trials

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases