Latest Cases

Criminal law – Assisting offender. The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal against conviction for murder, in circumstances where the appellant had allegedly assisted or encouraged 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 written submissions as to whether to quash the appellant's conviction and order a re-trial, or to quash the conviction and substitute a conviction for manslaughter. 

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. 

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). 

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. 

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. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division held that the meaning of a consent family remedy order meant that tax on a French property was not to come out of the wife's share of the proceeds. 

Company – Practice. The Chancery Division allowed an appeal against an order requiring three defendants to pay the claimant petitioners £54,000 following their petition for unfair prejudice in respect of the third defendant limited liability partnership (LLP). It held that, notwithstanding the barring (at a case management conference) of the relevant defendants for breach of an unless order, a final hearing had still been required so the petitioners could prove their case and to hear the defendants' counterclaim. The defendants had attended what had been a case management conference and had left with a judgment of £54,000 plus costs against them, which was unjustified and procedurally unfair. 

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. 

European Union – Air Transport. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, in particular arts 19, 22 and 29 thereof, should be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier which had concluded a contract of international carriage with an employer of persons carried as passengers, such as the employer at issue in the main proceedings, was liable to that employer for damage occasioned by a delay in flights on which its employees had been passengers pursuant to that contract, on account of which the employer had incurred additional expenditure.