Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Education – Pupil. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the decisions to transfer him to off-site educational provision and the failure to keep that decision under review. The school had not served the mandatory notice required under reg 3 of the Education (Educational Provision for Improving Behaviour) Regulations 2010, SI 2010/1156 and had failed to conduct mandatory reviews. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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). 

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. 

Road traffic – Accident. The Queen's Bench Division held in relation to a claimant who had suffered serious injuries following ejection from the back seat of a car in which he had not been wearing as seatbelt, that, having regard to Polish law he would be found 5% contributory negligent having regard to his injuries. In calculating his past loss of earnings, the claimant had to be given credit for benefits received in the United Kingdom. 

Practice – Chancery Division. The Chancery Division allowed an application to transfer a case to the Shorter Trial Scheme. In doing so, the court gave guidance on the court's jurisdiction to transfer an existing case in or out of the scheme.