Latest Cases

Customs and excise – Forfeiture. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, agreed with the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) that the answer to the question whether, after goods were deemed to have been duly condemned or had been condemned by the magistrates, an officer of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners exercising the discretionary power to restore goods to the owner could or should investigate a claim that the goods were not liable to forfeiture after all, was 'No'. 

Local government – Licensing – Street traders. Sheriff Court: Reversing a licensing authority's decision to vary street trader licences it had granted to the pursuers which allowed them, within set hours, to sell hot and cold food from snack vans on designated sites, to include a condition prohibiting them from operating within 250 metres of secondary schools from 8am to 5pm on school days, which the pursuers all did, the court held that the condition was ultra vires as the defender did not have the power to impose that particular condition on the licences of street traders. 

Criminal law – Wounding with intent. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held, that following a Goodyear indication, a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for wounding with intent, contrary to s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, had been unduly lenient. The offender's mitigation had not been sufficient to have justified a departure from the Sentencing Council's Definitive Guidelines: Assault. Consequently, the sentence would be quashed and substituted for a term of five years' imprisonment. 

Company – Administration-Director. The Chancery Division ruled on the joint liquidators' application for a declaration of wrongful trading that, although the directors of a company in administration ought to have concluded by a certain date that there was no reasonable prospect of the company avoiding insolvent liquidation, continued trading had not caused loss to the company overall or worsen the position of the creditors as a whole. Accordingly, no declaration was made under s 214(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986, requiring the directors to make any contribution to the assets of the company in respect of any losses said to have been caused to the company during the period of wrongful trading. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Commercial Court dismissed an application by Muktar Ablyazov's son-in-law (I) to set aside a claim form and worldwide freezing order which had been issued against him where the claimant Russian bank had established a good arguable case that I had committed the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means and where, notwithstanding that he was domiciled in Switzerland, the English court had jurisdiction under art 5(3) of the Lugano Convention on the basis that the alleged conspiracy had been hatched in England in the period before 16 February 2012. 

Housing – Homeless person. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' judicial review proceedings, claiming that the manner in which the defendant local housing authority had dealt with their applications for housing as a homeless person had been unlawful and had reflected systemic failings. The individual claims failed because there had been no breach of statutory duty or any breach was minor and did not warrant relief. Further, the possible breach of duty had not arguably supported a claim of systemic failure as was alleged in the general claim. 

Immigration – Appeal. The Administrative Court dismissed the Immigration Law Practitioners Association's application for judicial review. It held that r 13 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, SI 2014/2604, permitting direction prohibiting disclosure to person in specified circumstances, did not give rise to a systemic or inherent lack of fairness. 

Judgment – Default of defence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against a refusal to set aside default judgment. One of the conditions in CPR 12.3(1) had not been met, as no time for responding to service of the claim form had been given, and, therefore, the relevant time for doing so had not expired. Further, it could not be said that the defendant did not have an arguable defence. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division struck out the claimant's claim in libel on the basis of s 32A of the Limitation Act 1980. Following the expiry of a stay there had been an unexplained period of delay in a case which was in any event weak and one which the claimant was seeking to expand. 

Criminal law – Rape. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of three years' imprisonment for an offence of rape, contrary to s 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, had been unduly lenient. The judge had not identified sufficient mitigation to depart from the sentencing range, as prescribed by the Sentencing Council's Definitive Guidelines: Sexual Offences. The sentence would be quashed and substituted for a term of five years and six months' imprisonment.