Latest Cases

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division held dismissing a claim for damages for personal injury that although the defendant NHS Trust had been negligent in discharging the claimant without making arrangements for his blood to be re-taken, the delay had not caused the claimant to become 'appreciably worse'. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, in resolving ten preliminary issues, determined that warrants or authorisations under ss 5 or 7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 were lawful, and in principle complied with arts 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The Queen's Bench Division, held that on the facts and evidence, it could not be said that the defendant NHS Trust's negligence had caused the claimant's cerebral palsy which in turn had been caused by a shortage of oxygen (hypoxic ischemia) for a period of not less than 5 minutes and not more than 10 minutes immediately before his delivery. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland to face trial for 56 offences, including fraud and forgery, said to have been committed between April 1999 and March 2001. The offences had been adequately particularised, extradition was not oppressive due to the passage of time, and the private life of the appellant and his family had been outweighed by the public interest in extradition. 

Adjudication – Adjudicator. The Technology and Construction Court held that, in three adjudications arising from the renovation of a hotel, the adjudicator had not had the necessary jurisdiction to decide the third adjudication, and so his decision was unenforceable. There had been no breach of the rules of natural justice in the second adjudication. 

Criminal law – Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against conviction for having an offensive weapon, ruling that the act of bringing a cricket bat from his home into the street with an intention to use it to cause injury to those involved in an affray nearby fell within the ambit of s 1(4) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. Accordingly, the judge had not erred in rejecting a submission of no case to answer. 

Environment – Protection. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review of the removal of the exemption for renewable source electricity from the climate change levy. The defendants had not promoted any legitimate expectation in the claimants to the effect that the exemption would not be withdrawn without providing a lead time of two years or equivalent value and the decision had been proportionate. 

Negligence – Nuisance. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's claims under s 48A of the Water Resources Act 1994 for negligence and nuisance or loss and damage allegedly suffered by them as a result of the defendants' abstraction of water resulting from the construction of lakes. 

Practice – Compromise of action. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal concerning the scope of a compromise agreement entered into in the wake of the 'phone hacking' scandal. The judge below had held that, as a matter of interpretation, certain claims in a second action fell within the scope of a compromise of an earlier action and struck out the paragraphs of the particulars of claim which raised those claims. The judge had been right for the reasons he had given. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his appeal against the respondent Secretary of State's decision to make a deportation order against him, rejected the submission that, having recognised the appellant as a refugee, it had not been open to the Secretary of State to deport him without having taken steps to 'cessate' his refugee status. There was no proper basis for the assertion that past refugee status (of itself) raised a presumption of ill-treatment under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights on return.