Latest Cases

Damages – Entitlement to damages. The claimants were the tenants of a restaurant. A fire occurred at the restaurant, which was caused by contractors working for the landlord, P. The claimants commenced proceedings against P, seeking a range of remedies including the award of exemplary damages. The Chancery Division held that the claimants were entitled to be placed in the position that they would have been in had the fire not occurred, namely in occupation of restaurant premises with a working kitchen. Exemplary damages were not awarded. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Administrative Court previously gave judgment on the claimant's application for a declaration that the European Commission would be in contempt of court if it had taken certain action that would have the effect of interfering with orders granting interim relief that had been made in the action. The parties sought their costs. The court held that, in all the circumstances, there should be no order for costs as between the claimant and the Commission. However, the claimant should pay 50% of the defendant Food Standards Agency's costs and no order would be made as to the other 50%. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. A football stadium was subject to a planning condition that only three music events could be held there per year, only one of which could fall on a Sunday. The second defendant local authority and the first defendant Secretary of State's planning inspector refused the claimant's application to vary that condition to increase the number of music events held at the stadium. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no error of law in the decision. 

Child – Order. The Chinese mother applied to the court for permission to take the child J on holiday to China. The father objected on the basis that there was a risk of abduction. Having regard to the welfare checklist in s 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, the Family Court held that it was in J's best interest to travel to travel to China in the summer. It was important that she kept contact with her Chinese heritage. Further there was no evidence of abduction. 

Practice – Service out of the jurisdiction. The first defendant sought to set aside permissions to serve out of the jurisdiction granted to the claimant and second defendant. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was a serious issue to be tried, and that there was, at least, a good arguable case in relation to its gateways in contract, tort, contribution and necessary or proper party. Further, English jurisdiction was clearly and distinctly appropriate. 

Employment – Remuneration. The claimant, M, was employed with the defendant, Mears, following a transfer to the defendant under the Transfer of Employment (Protection of Undertakings) Regulations 2006 (TUPE). The issue of remuneration was dealt with at meetings with the then Managing Director of Mears. A dispute arose over the terms of agreement. M claimed over £2m against Mears, which he contended was due to him under a profit sharing bonus agreement. Mears disputed the claim. The Queen's Bench made various findings on the issue of liability and the parties would need to consider the implications of the findings for the claims made and address the court further. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant was convicted of assault in Poland, for which he received a suspended sentence, and he committed a further offence during his probationary period. He then came to the UK, where he worked to financially support his fiancée's family in Poland. A European arrest warrant was issued and the district judge made an order for his extradition to Poland. The appellant appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with his rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Prison – Life sentence. The claimant was serving a life sentence with a 37-year tariff for the murder of a police officer. He sought judicial review of his classification as a high escape risk. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the nature of the offence and the length of his sentence were highly relevant considerations. The claimant's further arguments were completely untenable and not established by the evidence. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The defendants were sentenced for offences which included threatening and injuring numerous people for the purpose of enforcing debts of a known drug-dealer. The first defendant was sentenced to a total sentence of 17 years' imprisonment for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and for firearm offences. The second defendant was sentenced to a total of three years and eight months' imprisonment for two counts of affray. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowing the appeal of the first defendant, held that the total sentence was manifestly excessive and that a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment overall was appropriate. On the facts, there was nothing excessive or wrong in principle in the sentence imposed on the second defendant and his appeal was dismissed. 

Contempt of court – Committal. A committal order for four months' immediate imprisonment was made in respect of the defendants regarding their non-compliance with a planning injunction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, in circumstances where compliance had been achieved and the defendants had apologised for their breaches and non-compliance, the order for imprisonment would be set aside and replaced by a substantial financial penalty calculated by reference to the income that they had received as a consequence of their breach.