Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division allowed an appeal from the defendant employer, following the entering of judgment by consent, seeking to rely on fresh medical evidence in relation to the claimant's claim that he had suffered diffuse pleural thickening and asbestosis caused by his exposure to asbestos dust during the course of his employment. The order would be varied to read that there be judgment for the claimant on breach of duty, with the issues of causation and quantum to be assessed. 

European Union – Treaty provisions. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the application by the European Commission for a declaration that by failing to repeal, with retroactive effect from 1 May 2004, the age-related criterion in art 27 of the Law 97 (Ι)/1997 on Pensions, Cyprus, which deterred workers from leaving their member state of origin in order to work in another member state, or in an EU institution, or in another international organisation and which had the effect of creating unequal treatment between migrant workers including those who worked in the EU institutions or in another international organisation, on the one hand, and civil servants who had worked in Cyprus, on the other, Cyprus had failed to fulfil its obligations under arts 45 and 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and under art 4(3) TEU. 

Terrorism – Sanctions. The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal in respect of a decision made by the respondent Secretary of State in September 2005, in his capacity as a member of the United Nations Security Council Sanctions Committee, which removed the hold the United Kingdom had previously placed on the appellant's designation by the Sanctions Committee. The court ruled on, among other things, issues concerning the tests to be applied in judging the legality of the decision and their consequences under domestic law. 

Mental health – Patient. In allowing the appellant patient's appeal, the Supreme Court held that it would be wrong to have a presumption that an anonymity order should be made in every case in civil proceedings in the High Court relating to a patient detained in a psychiatric hospital or otherwise subject to compulsory powers under the Mental Health Act 1983. However, in the present case, the anonymity order in place would be maintained on the basis that without it there was a very real risk that the progress the appellant had made during his long years of treatment in hospital would be put in jeopardy and his re-integration in the community, which had been an important purpose of his transfer to hospital, would not succeed. 

Social security – Housing benefit. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that reg B13 of the amended Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, SI 2006/213, unlawfully discriminated, without an objective and reasonable justification, against female victims of domestic violence living in specially adapted accommodation under the 'Sanctuary Scheme' and against disabled children living in specially adapted accommodation who required overnight respite care, contrary to art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The submissions that there had been a breach of the public sector equality duty under s 149 of the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that, art 143(1)(h) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, as amended, should be interpreted as meaning that a buyer, who was a natural person, and a seller, which was a legal person, within which a kin of that buyer actually had the power to influence the sales price of goods for the benefit of that buyer, had to be regarded as being related persons within the meaning of art 29(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The Technology and Construction Court ruled on the first application, under reg 96 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102, to lift an automatic suspension on a contract granted following the defendant local authority's procurement tendering process for the provision of substance misuse treatment and harm reduction services for substance users in Sunderland. In dismissing the authority's application, the court held that the effect of reg 96 of the Regulations was that the court would determine an application to lift a suspension according to the same American Cyanamid principles that applied in determining applications for interim relief. There was a serious issue to be tried in the present case brought by an unsuccessful bidder and the balance of convenience laid in favour of maintaining the suspension. 

Court of Appeal – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the third defendant company's application to vary an order requiring it to pay a judgment debt into court as a condition of the continuation of its appeal against a judgment awarding the claimant company (in liquidation) equitable compensation for dishonest assistance of breaches of fiduciary duty against the company by its sole director. The court took account of the position of third defendant's controlling shareholder and chairman, who was wealthy and able to provide it with financial assistance, and held that the third defendant had not established that it could not have satisfied the condition. In those circumstances, the court had no proper alternative but to dismiss the appeal. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 should be interpreted to the effect that its scope included an action brought by a third party, in accordance with national law, against the defendant in the original proceedings, and closely linked to those original proceedings, seeking reimbursement of compensation paid by that third party to the applicant in those original proceedings, provided that the action had not been instituted solely with the object of removing that defendant from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in the case. 

Privilege – Legal professional privilege. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the legality of the procedure set out in the Operational Handbook of the Serious Fraud Office for dealing with material potentially subject to legal professional privilege embedded in electronic devices. The procedure was lawful and, in particular, the preliminary sift of paper or electronic material did not have to, as a matter of law, be conducted by third parties.