Latest Cases

Feeds

Atkins v Co-Operative Group Ltd

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. 

*Youssef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

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. 

R (on the application of BB (Algeria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the refusal of indefinite leave to remain, which had been upheld by the Immigration and Asylum tribunals. At no point in the chronology of his case could the appellant have made an application for leave to remain which met the requirements of the Immigration Rules that had been in force at the time the application was made or at the time at which such application was decided. 

Lunn v Kanagaratnam

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The Queen's Bench Division ruled on a list of six disputed facts in connection with a clinical negligence claim arising out of the allegedly negligent manner in which the defendant had obtained the claimant's consent to surgery. 

European Commission v Cyprus

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. 

*Counted4 Community Interest Company v Sunderland City Council

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. 

Morgan v Secretary of State for Justice

Prison – Life sentence. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant serving prisoner's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions, refusing to re-categorise him from category A to category B and refusing him an oral hearing. His denial of the offence had not been treated as a bar to re-categorisation and an oral hearing would not have affected the decisions. Further, the claimant had been given an opportunity, reasonable in all the circumstances, to rehabilitate himself. 

*R (on the application of C) v Secretary of State for Justice

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. 

John Sisk & Son Ltd v Duro Felguera UK Ltd

Building contract – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court ruled that the claimant company was entitled to summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's award of in excess of £10m in respect of work at a power plant, which the claimant had been engaged by the defendant company to carry out. The defendant's challenge to the adjudicator's decision on the grounds that there had been breaches of natural justice and/or a wrongful delegation of the adjudicator's decision-making function, failed in every ground. 

Goldtrail Travel Ltd (in liquidation) v Aydin and others

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. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

From Preston to Parliament

Chair of the Bar reports back

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases