Latest Cases

Costs – Order for costs. In a personal injury claim brought by the claimant against the defendant doctor in respect of the deceased, the claimant's husband, the claimant was successful in respect of some issue and not in respect of others. Nevertheless the claimant submitted that she was entitled to all of her costs. The Queen's Bench Division taking all matters into account, including the absence of a part 36 offer on the part of the defendant and a later re-amendment by the claimant found that the claimant should have 75% of her costs. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision that her representations, relying upon art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, did not amount to a fresh claim for asylum. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had addressed herself to all of the relevant considerations and had formed a view which was not one which was irrational or untenable. Further, the claimant had not established a private life of sufficient strength to lead to the Secretary of State's decision being overturned. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employer dismissed the employee for misconduct, namely dishonesty. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's claim for unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal's conclusions had not been perverse. 

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. 

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. 

Immigration – Refugee. The claimants, T and N, were Iraqi refugees who had taken refuge in Syria and their cases were referred to the Secretary of State for consideration of their resettlement to the United Kingdom. Their applications were refused on the ground that their resettlement in the UK would not be conducive to the public good. The Secretary of State maintained the decision and the claimants sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the attempt to impose an obligation upon the Secretary of State to consider their applications in accordance with the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 was unnecessary and would be contrary to the preservation of absolute flexibility. 

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. 

Housing – Homeless person. The appellant had been assessed by the local authority as not being in priority need of housing. The reviewing officer found that he was no more at risk than the ordinary street homeless person and dismissed the appeal. The appellant's application to the county court was rejected. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant's appeal and found that the reviewing officer's mistakes regarding the statistics that demonstrated suicide risk among the street homeless had not infected the whole of his decision, which had not been perverse or irrational. Further, the reviewing officer had been entitled to conclude that the appellant's risk of relapse into drug taking did not make him especially vulnerable when compared with other street homeless people. 

European Union – Social security. The proceedings concerned a decision withdrawing the applicant's entitlement to family benefits in France, where she lived with her family, on the ground that the Czech Republic, of which she was a national and where she had her registered address, did not have competence to grant her such benefits. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered questions referred to it by the national court concerning the interpretation of art 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) 1408/71, as amended, and of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EEC) 883/2004, as amended. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants in a human rights claim regarding prison conditions in the United Kingdom had their cases struck out. They applied to have them reinstated. The Queen's Bench Division having regard to CPR 3.9 held that on the facts no relief from sanction would be granted in each of the five actions and they would consequently remain struck out.