Latest Cases

Professional misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant pharmacist appealed against the decision of the respondent General Pharmaceutical Council's Fitness to Practise Committee (the FPC) to remove him from the Register of Pharmacists, as his fitness to practise was impaired. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the FPC's decision had not been wrong in its determination of the facts and there had been no procedural irregularity or unfairness in its proceedings. Further, the decision to remove the appellant from the Register of Pharmacists had been open to it and had not breached art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

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. 

Company – Take-over bid. The claimant companies had been beneficial shareholders in the defendant company. The directors of the defendant imposed restrictions on the claimants under Pt 22 of the Companies Act 2006 and pursuant to its articles of association. The claimants commenced derivative actions challenging those restrictions. The defendant's submission that the claimants had not had standing to bring the claims was dismissed by the Chancery Division. The claimants succeeded in part. The defendant and one of the claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal, holding that the defendant's power to impose the restrictions had not been used for an improper purpose. The claimant's submission that the judge had erred in finding that the disclosure notices issued under s 793 of the Act had been valid was dismissed, as was its submission that the judge had erred in finding that the defendant had had reasonable cause to believe that the claimant's disclosure had been false or materially incorrect. 

Magistrates – Warrant. The claimants sought judicial review of the execution of warrants at their homes and business premises by the defendant Environment Agency. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, taking the provisions of s 108(6) of and Sch 18 to the Environment Act 1995 together, seven days' notice was not required to be given in the cases set out in s 108(6)(b) of the Act. Further, the warrant had extended to a bungalow on one property and the defendant's officers had not gone beyond their statutory powers. 

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the action brought by Moallem Insurance Co for: (i) annulment of the European Council which had listed the applicant in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP); (ii) annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 (implementing Regulation (EU) 267/2012 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) 961/2010) in so far as it had listed the applicant in Annex IX to Regulation 267/2012; and (iii) a declaration that art 12 of Decision 2010/413 and art 35 of Regulation 267/2012 were inapplicable to it. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to the Czech Republic on the basis that it would be an abuse of process. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the extradition process had not been abused. There was nothing to suggest that the injustice to the appellant of having been tried, convicted and sentenced in his absence on the erroneous premise that he had been a fugitive from justice had been the result of anything other than incompetence on the part of the Czech authorities. There was no material which suggested that they had been motivated by bad faith. 

Criminal law – Committal. The Privy Council dismissed the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his claims for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, in circumstances where it had been it was unsurprising that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago had not been prepared to draw the inference that the prosecutor had acted with malice in proceeding with the prosecution against the appellant. 

Nuisance – Sewer. During construction work in Newcastle, concrete used to make building supports by the defendant company escaped into a sewer controlled by the claimant company. The claimant brought proceedings in nuisance and negligence. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claim. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had not erred in dismissing the claim. 

Education – School. The claimant governing body of a school sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision that it should become an academy sponsored by an academy trust. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the evidence had justified the Secretary of State's view that sponsored academies were more likely to deliver attainment and improve progress in schools in need of intervention than maintained schools. Further, he had had regard to the possible disruption caused by the conversion and his decision had not been premature or irrational in the light of the schools improvement. 

Costs – Employment tribunal. The employee's claims were struck out and the tribunal judge ordered that he should pay the whole of the employer's costs of the proceedings, to be assessed by the county court. The employee appealed, submitting that the judge had taken into account the substantial bill of costs incurred by the employer's in-house solicitor. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held, inter alia, that a receiving party could claim costs where he was legally represented by a qualified employee and that the definition within rule 38(3) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2004 had not placed any artificial restriction on such a claim.