Latest Cases

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. The appellant registered nurse appealed against the decision of a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee of the respondent Nursing and Midwifery Council (the panel), finding that his fitness to practice was impaired by reason of misconduct and suspending his registration for 12 months. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the panel had failed to conduct a careful balancing exercise in admitting the witness statements of absent witnesses and had failed to consider their credibility or reliability. Further, the findings in respect of a third witness could not stand and the decision would be quashed with no direction for a rehearing. 

Employment – Remuneration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employer's argument, amongst other things, that the employment tribunal had been wrong to hold that the indirect discrimination that the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, SI 1999/584 had created by providing, in the exemption set out in reg 12(8), more favourable access to employment opportunities for United Kingdom students than for non-UK students had been justified. The EAT decided that the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the discriminatory effects had been justified as being in pursuit of a legitimate aim. 

Social security – Housing benefit. The claimants challenged reg B13(5) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, SI 2006/213 on the basis that it was manifestly without reasonable foundation not to make provision for an extra bedroom where a disabled child in a housing benefit claimant's family was a person who required overnight care from a non-resident carer. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the means employed by the housing benefit scheme to achieve the government's policy objective had not been inappropriate or disproportionate in its adverse effects. 

Mortgage – Real property. The defendant valued a commercial property for the claimant which was security for a loan. The tenant of the property became insolvent and the property was in the process of being sold for a price far below the valuation. The claimant brought a claim for professional negligence against the defendant company which went into liquidation in 2012. It sought judgment for €58,400,000, being the difference between the valuation of the property at €135m and what the claimant contended was the true market value at €76.6m. The Commercial Court concluded that the true value of the property as at December 2005 was €103m and that the defendant had therefore 'negligently' overvalued the property by €32m. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to Lithuania to stand trial for unlawful imprisonment and a public order offence. He contended that his extradition was barred by s 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, as he posed a real and immediate risk of suicide. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that there had been no evidence to show that the Lithuanian authorities would not be aware of and would not comply with their obligations, which were to ensure the continued safety of the appellant. 

Freedom of information – Information. The claimant complained to the first defendant Information Commissioner in respect of the second defendant local authority's failure to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the requested Excel format and to help him to formulate an appropriate request. The complaints and appeals were dismissed and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the authority had been required to provide the information in the requested format. Further, the authority had complied with its duty to help him to formulate an appropriate request. 

Immigration – Refugee. The claimants, T and N, were Iraqi refugees who had taken refuge in Syria and their cases were referred to the Secretary of State for consideration of their resettlement to the United Kingdom. Their applications were refused on the ground that their resettlement in the UK would not be conducive to the public good. The Secretary of State maintained the decision and the claimants sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the attempt to impose an obligation upon the Secretary of State to consider their applications in accordance with the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 was unnecessary and would be contrary to the preservation of absolute flexibility. 

Company – Breach of contract. The claimant company sought to purchase a waste management business from the defendants. The claimant claimed that the defendants had breached a number of warranties contained in a specific performance agreement (SPA). The defendants counterclaimed for breach of the SPA. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, the claim was made out in part, and the counterclaim was not made out. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant immigration detention charity issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the lawfulness of the defendant Secretary of State's policy and practice in the operation of the detained fast track (DFT) for the detention of some asylum seekers while their asylum claims were determined. The Administrative Court held that the various shortcomings in the DFT process required the early instruction of lawyers absent from the process. That was sufficiently significant that the DFT carried too high a risk of unfair determinations for those who might be vulnerable applicants. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Tifosi Optics, Inc (Tifosi) seeking annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between Tom Tailor GmbH and Tifosi relating to the application by Tifosi for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark.