Latest Cases

Injunction – Interim injunction. The claimant was the freehold owner of a piece of empty land (the adjoining plot) immediately adjacent to a property in Holland Park, which was owned by the defendant management company. The defendant sought an interim injunction to prevent the claimant from applying for planning permission to build a house which she proposed to build on the adjoining plot. The Chancery Division, refusing the application, held that that difference in the risk of unquantifiable damage pointed firmly in favour of not granting the injunction, in particular, having regard to various undertakings which the claimant had offered. 

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the provisions of the Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388, as amended by Council Directive (EC) 95/7. The request arose during proceedings between the applicant in the main proceedings and the French Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance, concerning the refusal to refund to the applicant the value added tax which it had paid in France for work which had been carried out in France. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Guinean national sought damages, declarations and an order for an inquiry for her unlawful immigration detention. The Administrative Court granted her claim. Accordingly, the claimant was entitled to damages, but an investigation into the circumstances of the claimant's detention would not be ordered, as they were well documented. 

Company – Administration. The defendant appealed against the judge's order that the claimant administrators be permitted to sell the assets of a company, which were subject to a fixed charge security held by the defendant, as if they were not subject to that security. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that judge had approached the matter correctly, had properly taken into account the matters to which he had been bound to have regard and had come to a conclusion which had fallen well within the bounds of a reasonable exercise of his discretion. 

Adoption – Application. The applicant de-facto step-father, who was in a close personal relationship with the mother, applied to the court to adopt her two children. Each child had a different father. The trial judge refused the application and the father appealed. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) allowed the appeal and held that the judge had fallen into substantial error in his evaluation of the balance of rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, hence, the overall proportionality of making adoption orders. In addition the judge appeared to have misinterpreted the statutory regime under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the requirements that it had placed upon him. 

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. 

Practice – Application. The claimant bank sought Norwich Pharmacal orders against a number of persons to whom payments had been made in error. The Chancery Division held that, excluding some of the personal details sought, the orders would be granted. 

Practice – Civil litigation. In the course of private law family proceedings, the local authority intervened and issued care proceedings in relation to the two children. A case management hearing was held, at which the judge made critical comments of the mother and maternal grandmother and expressed doubt as to the veracity of their evidence. Following the fact finding hearing, the judge held that the mother's allegations were untrue and determined that the threshold criteria had been met. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, commenting on the role of the judge in such proceedings, allowed the mother's appeal on the ground that the judge had displayed apparent judicial bias. 

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. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The court dismissed the father's application to discharge care orders in respect of two children, E and N, and granted a placement order in respect of N. Prior to the hearing, the judge had declined to order an addendum report from the psychologist. The father appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that the refusal of a further report was well within the discretion of the judge and, further, it had not been demonstrated that the judge's conclusion as to the children's best interests had been wrong on the material available.