Latest Cases

European Union – Community aid. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that the first paragraph of art 33 of Regulation 2419/2001 had to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of intentional irregularity found in an area aid application, the farmer was to be refused all of the aid to which that farmer would have been entitled under the aid scheme concerned by the application and for which the crop group concerned by that irregularity had been eligible. 

Children and young persons – Parental orders. Following an application by the applicants, surrogate parents of the child, X, for a parental order, made outside of the time limit. The Family Division held that s 54(3) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, did not have the effect of preventing the court from making an order merely because the application had been made after the expiration of the six month time period. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employee recovered compensation in respect of sex discrimination and unfair dismissal claims. The employer sought a review of the award, with a request to stay the review pending the determination of an appeal in relation to another employee who had been involved in the same incident and dismissed. The employment judge refused the employer's application. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, held that the judge had erroneously rejected the application at the threshold stage. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted for consideration. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Legal professional privilege. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed, in part, an appeal by Vincent Tchenguiz and others against a decision of the Commercial Court refusing them permission to make use of documents disclosed inadvertently by the Serious Fraud Office in the course of proceedings. The court held, amongst other things, that it had not been obvious that the documents, which were subject to legal professional privilege, had been disclosed by mistake. 

European Union – Customs and Excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 9(1) of Council Directive (EEC) 92/12, as amended, read in conjunction with art 7 of that directive, should be interpreted as allowing a member state to designate as liable to excise duty a person who held for commercial purposes, on the fiscal territory of that state, products subject to excise duty that had been released for consumption in another member state, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, even though that person had not been the first holder of those products in the member state of destination. 

Criminal law – Trial. Following changes to the funding of legal aid in criminal cases, the defendants in a complex fraud trial were unable to obtain representation by counsel. The judge in the Crown Court stayed the proceedings. The Financial Conduct Authority, as prosecuting authority appealed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the appeal. To conclude that the state had violated the process of the court or that what had happened had jeopardised the integrity of the criminal justice system (as opposed to its effective operation) was wrong as a matter of principle. Further, on closer analysis, the judge had been wrong to find that there was no realistic prospect of competent advocates with sufficient time to prepare being available in the foreseeable future. 

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant was convicted unanimously of ten counts of indecent assault and four counts of indecency with a child in respect of alleged historical abuse of his step-daughter. The issue on appeal, among other things, was whether the judge's summing up on the burden and standard of proof had been defective. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge's summing up had been defective and it could not be said that the verdicts would necessarily have been the same had an appropriate summing up been given. The conviction was quashed. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) assessed the claimant asylum seeker as a minor, but the High Court in distinct judicial review proceedings found that he was not a minor. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) found error in the FTT's decisions and placed considerable weight on the High Court's decision in finding the claimant an adult. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the UT had not been bound by the High Court's decision, but had been entitled to attach considerable weight to it. However, the UT had not regarded itself as bound by the High Court's decision and had not fundamentally erred. 

Gaming – Lawful and unlawful gaming. The claimant casino issued proceedings to recover £1m on unpaid cheques provided by the defendant in exchange for chips, which she had lost. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the claim, held that there had been no unlawful giving of credit to the defendant. Further, the defendant had not established any claim in negligence, as it was not fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of care on the claimant to prevent her from using her cheque cashing facility. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire challenged the defendant local authority's grant of outline planning permission so far as it concerned funding for police services. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had failed to surmount the very high threshold for establishing irrationality in the authority's failure to ensure an agreement under s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 secured adequate and timely contributions to policing. Further, the authority had not made an unequivocal representation that could have led the claimant to expect that it would be consulted on the level of and timing of the delivery of the contribution.