Latest Cases

Elections – Local government. The petitioners had issued an election petition that sought to declare void the mayoral elections that had been held in Tower Hamlets. The petitioners applied to have the election court held outside the borough because, they submitted, there had been widespread intimidation of electors who did not support the successful candidate, including harassment of one of the petitioners, because witnesses were likely to be subjected to intimidation and because any venue in the borough would be surrounded by large groups of supporters for the successful candidate, as had been the case during the election. The Queen's Bench Division held that there were no special circumstances that justified fixing the place of trial outside the borough where the Commissioner who heard the petition had the power to discuss security with the police and could move the venue at any time, to another one within the borough, if he felt that it had become inappropriate. 

Immigration – Asylum – Victim of trafficking. Court of Session: In judicial review proceedings by a Nigerian asylum seeker who claimed to be a victim of trafficking and forced prostitution, seeking reduction of decisions to certify her asylum claim as one appropriately requiring removal to Italy and to issue removal directions, the court held that, on the basis that the transfer provisions of Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003 ('Dublin II') were engaged the Secretary of State had failed to exercise the residual discretion available under art 3(2) of Dublin II by considering the risk that the petitioner's rights under art 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be breached on return to Italy by exposure once again to forced prostitution. 

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. 

Practice – Hearing. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, gave guidance on the circumstances in which the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) could lawfully adopt a closed material procedure in which a party and his legal representatives were excluded from the hearing or part of it when it was hearing an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner. It held that the features most comprehensively spelt out in British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection v Information Commissioner and another ([2011] UKFTT EA_2010_0064 (GRC)) fully justified the approach taken in the present case, in which the maximum candour possible had been achieved. 

European Union – Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2(a), 12(a) and 13(1)(d), (f) and (g) of Directive (EC) 95/46 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data), and of arts 8(2) and 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The requests had been made in two sets of proceedings between third country nationals who had applied for a residence permit for a fixed period in the Netherlands, and the Netherlands Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum, concerning the Minister's refusal to communicate to those nationals a copy of an administrative document drafted before the adoption of the decisions on their applications for residence permits. 

Sentence – Hospital order. The claimant, who had a long history of mental health problems, had received an indeterminate sentence for arson with intent to endanger property. Having served the minimum term, she sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's and Parole Board's decisions in reviewing her detention over 22 months. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, although it had taken a considerable time to be resolved, there had been no breach of the obligation on the part of the state to provide a 'speedy' resolution. 

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. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant suffered injury in an accident in a car driven by the first defendant in Germany. Proceedings were issued in England. The issue for determination was whether German or English law applied to the assessment of damages, which turned on the application of art 4 of Council Regulation EC 864/2007 (on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations) ('Rome II'). The Queen's Bench Division held that the law applicable to the claim in tort was German law. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The Supreme Court considered issues surrounding 'linguistic analysis reports' provided by a commercial organisation (Sprakab) in asylum appeals. It examined the appropriateness of guidance given in RB (Linguistic evidence – Sprakab) ([2010] UKUT 329 (IAC)) (RB), particularly with respect to the anonymity of Sprakab's individual analysts and linguists. With regard to the particular respondents, the reports' comments on their knowledge of country and culture had been inadequately supported by the authors' expertise. Further, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had treated RB as binding and had failed to give critical analysis to the particular reports relied on. 

Tort – Harassment. The claimant brought a claim against the defendant under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (the 1997 Act) and under an agreement made in 2002. The Queen's Bench Division held that on the evidence, none of the individual allegations constituted harassment. Even if the court was to agglomerate them all together and to consider together all of those allegations which were capable as a matter of law of amounting to harassment, the court would still not be convinced that they demonstrated a course of conduct amounting to harassment so as to found civil liability.