Latest Cases

Feeds

*Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and other companies v Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime

Riot – Damage. In the course of the 2011 London Riots, a gang of youths broke into a warehouse, looted it and burned it down with petrol bombs. The judge held that the gang were 'persons riotously and tumultuously assembled' so that the defendant Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime was liable to compensate anyone who had sustained losses, but that the defendant's liability did not extend to consequential loss. The parties appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the judge had been correct in his findings on liability. However, s 2(1) of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 included a right to compensation for consequential loss. 

Milton Keynes Council v RR and others

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. 

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

Immigration – Detention. The defendant Secretary of State detained the claimant Dutch national on the basis that he was subject to non-automatic deportation due to his criminal offence. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no breach of a duty to make inquiries as to the claimant's mental health and there was wholly insufficient evidence to establish that he had had a serious mental illness that could not be adequately managed in detention. Further, there had been additional features justifying detention in the claimant's case, including the risk of his committing further offences and the risk of his absconding. 

R (on the application of The Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire) v Blaby District Council

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. 

Kemp v Court of 1st Instance No.4 of Orihuela, Alicante, Spain

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court allowed the appellant judicial authority's appeal against the judge's discharge of the respondent's extradition to Spain to face trial for playing a leading role in a conspiracy to smuggle 800kg of cannabis to the United Kingdom, as the judge's conclusion on proportionality could not stand. However, it dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal, as he had produced no evidence at all of reasonable grounds to believe that the sole reason for the failure to charge or to try him had been his absence from Spain. 

Euro-Link Consultants Srl and another v European Commission

European Union – Public procurement. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by Euro-Link Consultants Srl and another company in the same consortium (the applicants) for the annulment of the decision not to award the contract for 'Crimean tourism diversification and support project' to the applicants' consortium and the subsequent decisions rejecting the applicants' complaints. 

*R (on the application of Barkas) v North Yorkshire County Council and another

Commons – Registration. The Supreme Court considered the issue of whether land in Whitby should be registered as a town or village green under s 15 of the Commons Act 2006. At first instance, and on appeal, it was held that the land should not be registered. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court held that, since members of the public had been entitled to go onto and use the land, provided that they used it for the stipulated purpose in s 12(1) of the 1985 Act, namely for recreation, and that they did so in a lawful manner, the appeal would be dismissed. Further, the court considered the case of R (on the application of Beresford) v Sunderland City Council[2004] 1 All ER 160, and held that it was flawed and could no longer be relied upon. 

Fernando v General Medical Council

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The Fitness to Practise Panel (the panel) of the respondent General Medical Council found that the appellant doctor's fitness to practise was impaired and imposed a sanction of erasure from the medical register. The appellant appealed on the ground that the sanction was disproportionate. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the panel's determination was unimpeachable. It had come to a conclusion that it had been entitled to on the evidence before it and had provided adequate reasoning for the task which it had had to discharge. 

SRJ v Person(s) Unknown (Author And Commenters of Internet Blogs)

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant was a corporate entity which provided services to the United Kingdom and other governments. The defendant was a former employee of the claimant and the author of at least two blogs in which confidential information was published. The claimant sought an order requiring the respondent solicitors for the defendant, to disclose his name. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application and held that the disclosure of the client's name would have the practical effect of disclosing confidential communications between lawyer and client. 

Re G (a child) (contact: long term foster care)

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that, in deciding to refuse contact between E and other members of her family, the judge had failed to take into account a number of highly significant matters, the omission of which rendered the judicial analysis unsafe. The issue of contact needed to be reheard by a different judge who would be in a position to take on board all of the relevant factors and, if necessary, be furnished with an up–to-date appraisal of E's wishes and feelings, and information concerning any other developments. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

Global gatherings

The Chair of the Bar reports back

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases