Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post judgment relief. The Chancery Division allowed the claimants' application for a notification injunction, by which they would be notified if the defendants sought to dispose of certain assets. The claimants alleged that they had been caused to enter into business projects that had disadvantaged them and advantaged the defendants, as a result of intimidation by the defendants. The court held that, on the evidence and taking into account that the proposed notification injunction was less intrusive than a freezing order, it was appropriate to conclude that there was a risk of dissipation. 

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. 

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. 

Sentence – Extended term of imprisonment. On a reference by the Attorney General, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that an extended sentence of 140 months, comprising a custodial element of 92 months and an extended licence period of 48 months, for causing grievous bodily harm with intent, had been unduly lenient. In all the circumstances, the custodial element of that sentence would be quashed and in its place, a term of 11 years' imprisonment would be imposed. The extended licence period of 48 months would remain the same. 

European Union – Companies. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that European Union law should be interpreted as meaning that: – the law applicable following a cross-border merger by acquisition to the interpretation of a loan contract taken out by the acquired company, such as the contracts at issue in the main proceedings, to the performance of the obligations under the contract and to how those obligations were extinguished was the law which was applicable to the contract before the merger; – the provisions governing the protection of the creditors of the acquired company, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, were those of national law which were applicable to that company. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's acceptance of the judge's determination that his tariff should not be reduced. Although a victim personal statement should not have been considered by the judge if its author had been unwilling to have it disclosed to the claimant, the judge's decision had been inevitable. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The county court dismissed the claimant's claim for damages for physical and emotional abuse caused by a licensee on parole after a murder conviction. The Secretary of State had not owed the claimant a duty of care to investigate the initial allegations that she had been in a relationship with the licensee in a different, more thorough, manner, nor had he owed a duty to warn the claimant of the licensee's background. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Chancery Division, on the claimant's application for an order, under s 51(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, that RG, who had been joined as a party to the present proceedings for the purposes of costs only, pay the costs of its claim against the first defendant, held that the present was an exceptional case and it was just to make an order for costs against RG. RG was ordered to pay the claimant's costs incurred from the date on which the first defendant had filed its acknowledgement of service. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellants' appeal by way of case stated against the Crown Court's decision, dismissing their appeal against conviction for using their land as a builder's merchants with ancillary sales, in contravention of the terms of an enforcement notice. There had been sufficient evidence on which the Crown Court could reasonably conclude to the required standard that the land had been used as a builder's merchants with ancillary sales throughout the period alleged in the information. 

European Union – Residence. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 7(1)(c) of Council Directive (EC) 2003/86 should be interpreted as allowing the competent authorities of a member state to refuse an application for family reunification on the basis of a prospective assessment of the likelihood of the sponsor retaining, or failing to retain, the necessary stable and regular resources which were sufficient to maintain himself and the members of his family, without recourse to the social assistance system of that member state, in the year following the date of submission of that application, that assessment being based on the pattern of the sponsor's income in the six months preceding that date.