Latest Cases

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by insurers against an order that they pay the claimants' costs of the proceedings, which had been made on the basis of, among other things, the exercise of the court's discretion to order costs to be paid by a non-party, pursuant to s 51(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The insurers were unable to demonstrate that the judge's exercise of his discretion had been flawed in any way. On the contrary, there had been ample material to have justified the order which he had made. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his application for judicial review of a decision that he was not entitled to asylum and that the discretion under r 353B of the Immigration Rules would not be exercised in his favour. An error in the decision letter had neither amounted to maladministration nor been a material error. It was inconceivable that, if the error had not been made, a different conclusion would have been reached on the facts of the case. 

Negligence – Defective premises. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's appeal from a decision of a master granting the defendants summary judgment on the claimant's claim under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and s 4 Defective Premises Act 1972 in respect of the death of her husband. There had been no real prospect of success on any part of the claim and summary judgment had been properly granted. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision, granting the interested party planning permission for the construction of acoustic barriers, use of land for the storage of shooting huts and associated development. The authority had not failed to consider material considerations and its decision had not been irrational. 

Constitutional law – Heads of foreign states. The Queen's Bench Division struck out the trespass claimant's case and accepted the defendant's submission that in the case as pleaded, the claimant was indirectly impleading the state of Qatar and therefore Qatar was entitled to claim sovereign immunity in respect of the subject matter of the claims under the provisions of the State Immunity Act 1978. 

Adoption – Arrangements. The Family Court made care and placement orders in respect of two children despite their parents being in Slovakia and not giving consent. In so deciding, the court took into account the likely effect on the children (throughout their lives) of ceasing to be members of their birth family and found that any disadvantages were outweighed by the emotional security they would acquire as adopted persons. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's clinical negligence case against the defendant doctors on the basis that there was a credible explanation for why no sufficient warning bells had rung for any doctor who had seen the claimant in order to diagnose signs of a subarachnoid haemorrhage, from which she had later suffered. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division held that in considering allowing the claimants' application for pre-action disclosure under CPR 31.16/s 33 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 in relation to a causes of action in defamation and harassment that the claimants had made out a clear and strong case for the exercise of the court's discretion to order pre-action disclosure in their favour. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to the Slovak Republic to face charges for fraud and forgery. In the circumstances of the case, the passage of 16 years and the events which had occurred within that period meant that it would be unjust to direct the appellant's extradition. 

Police – Disclosure of information. The Administrative Court granted the claimant declaratory relief on the basis that he had no means of seeking to persuade a public authority that disclosure of two reprimands for offences of sexual activity with a child, issued when he had been aged 13, had not been relevant or necessary. Accordingly, there were insufficient safeguards and the interference with the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been in accordance with the law.