Latest Cases

Building contract – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court allowed an application to enforce an adjudicator's decision in circumstances where the dispute between the parties had crystallised by the time the notice of adjudication was issued and the adjudicator had not acted in breach of natural justice in having sought to obtain, and having obtained, further information from the claimant which had not been provided previously. It was wrong in principle to suggest that a dispute had not arisen until every last particular of every last element of the claim had been provided. Further, it was not unfair if an adjudicator was given information during the adjudication which had not previously been available (whether it had been previously requested or not). 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court made a parental order under s 54 Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act 2008 despite the fact that the surrogacy relating to that order had concerned different parties to the original agreement which had been made with the surrogate in 2012. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Nigerian national's application for judicial review of the lawfulness of his immigration detention and/or his treatment while in detention. In particular, his detention had not been unlawful due to a breach of the Secretary of State's policy on detaining the mentally ill or the principles in R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Singh ([1984] 1 All ER 983). 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court dismissed an application by the claimant local planning authority, under s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to quash the decision of an inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State allowing an appeal and granting permission for development. There were no grounds upon which to quash the decision. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a breach of art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as following the revocation of the applicant's release on licence, it could not be said that the lawfulness of his ongoing detention had been considered speedily. However, there was no breach in regard to the fairness of the detention reviews. 

Employment – Disability. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) allowed the employee's appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal that he did not have a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The EAT held that the tribunal had not given adequate reasons for its conclusions, given the occupational health evidence which it had accepted. Further, applying the relevant caselaw, the employee had had a disability for the purposes of the Act. 

Criminal law – Assisting offender. The Privy Council allowed the appellant's appeal against a conviction for murder in circumstances where the appellant had allegedly assisted another person to commit a murder. The court held that the principle regarding encouragement and assistance expressed in the case of Chan Wing-Siu v R (see[1984] 3 All ER 877) had been wrong. It invited the parties' written submissions as to the advice which it should tender regarding the disposal of the appeal. 

Employment – Victimisation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employer's appeal against the decision of the employment tribunal to uphold the employee's complaint of victimisation. The EAT decided that the tribunal had not asked itself the right question and that its reasons had not been adequate to explain why it had found against the employer. 

European Union – Telecommunications. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of arts 19(1) and 23(1) and (2) of Directive 2010/13/EU. The request had been made in proceedings between Sanoma Media Finland Oy–Nelonen Media (Sanoma) and the Finnish Telecommunications Regulatory Authority, concerning the legality of a decision by which the Regulatory Authority had found that Sanoma had infringed Finnish law relating to television advertising and had ordered it to remedy the situation. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant local planning authority's challenge to the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, allowing the second defendant's appeal against its refusal of planning permission for the erection of up to 90 dwellings. The inspector had not erred, in particular, with respect to housing need.