Latest Cases

Police – Discipline. The claimant police officers issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the refusal of their appeals against the continued imposition of the service confidence procedure (SCP) against them. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the decisions had sufficient public law element. However, the circumstances which led to a decision to invoke the SCP required that the court not intervene in the absence of very exceptional circumstances and that threshold had not been met. There was no patent and unanswerable illogicality/irrationality/unfairness in the defendant's decisions. 

Housing – Homeless person. The issue before the court was whether a court in possession proceedings under the Housing Act 1996 should approach a defence based on disability discrimination in the same way as it would approach one based on art 8 of the European Convention, on Human Rights and if so whether the judge had correctly applied that approach. The effect of recent case law was that where a tenant relied on art 8(1) as a defence to possession proceedings brought by an authority or a social landlord, he had to show a seriously arguable case and that the threshold for raising an arguable case on proportionality was a high one, which would only succeed in a small proportion of cases. The Court of Appeal endorsed that approach. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The defendants appealed against their convictions for failing to comply with an enforcement notice on the basis that the solicitor then acting for the local authority had deliberately concealed information in obtaining the notice. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that s 285 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and R v Wicks ([1997] 2 All ER 801) had precluded the judge from investigating the alleged unlawful act in the context of the criminal trial. The judge had failed to consider the defendants' alternative argument, but it would be inappropriate to remit the case for that argument to be considered. 

Practice – Striking out. The claimant solicitor and the second defendant retired solicitor had acted for the first defendant in a boundary dispute. The differences arising from that litigation resulted in further proceedings between the parties. The Queen's Bench Division dealt with their application notices. It held that there was no basis to strike out the claimant's application against the defendants under the Protection from Harassment Act 1977. However, the court struck out the witness statements of the defendants and the second defendant's wife as irrelevant, an abuse of the court's process and likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. RR was an elderly lady suffering from dementia. She was being looked after at home by her son and his companion. Following a safeguarding scare, the local authority removed RR from her home without informing her son or seeking permission from the court. The Family Division made declarations to the effect that as a result there had been a breach of RR's rights under art 5 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. 

Contract – Penalty. The claimant company sought a remedy against the defendants for breaches by the defendants of their restrictive covenants following the sale of a business by the defendants. The Queen's Bench Division held that in the context of the non-compete covenants the defendants had been in partial breach of the non-compete covenant and the claimant was entitled to judgment for damages to be assessed. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders of a district judge for his extradition to Poland to stand trial for fraud, on the basis that it would be oppressive, by reason of his chronic and untreated pseudoexfoliation glaucoma. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, on the evidence that had not been before the judge, it would be oppressive by reason of the appellant's medical condition to order his extradition. 

Agriculture – Agricultural land. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that the definition of 'permanent pasture' set out in art 2(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) 1120/2009 had to be interpreted as covering agricultural land which was currently, and had been for five years or more, used to grow grass and other herbaceous forage, even though that land had been ploughed up and seeded with another variety of herbaceous forage other than that which had previously been grown on it during that period. 

Declaration – Jurisdiction. The claimant trust was authorised to bring claims on behalf of a large number of individuals in the United States who had allegedly suffered injury as a result of exposure to asbestos and asbestos related products, which had been supplied and/or distributed by the first defendant (T&N), an English company and its subsidiaries. The trust applied to the Commercial Court for declarations concerning the obligations of the reinsurers relating to the handling and settlement of any asbestos claims that the trust wished to advance against T&N. The Commercial Court held that the trust, as a third party and non-party to the relevant insurance contract, had no standing to claim such declaratory relief. 

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.