Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Insurance – Repudiation of claim. The appellant company issued proceedings, seeking payment under its insurance policy with the respondent company. The judge found that the appellant had not made a fraudulent claim, but the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago overturned that decision and the appellant appealed. The Privy Council, in allowing the appeal, held that the Court of Appeal had had no proper basis for concluding that the trial judge had gone plainly wrong in his assessment of the evidence. Accordingly, it had erred in substituting its views on the critical question. 

Costs – Claim. The claimant chairman of the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forums sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to bring into force ss 44 and 46 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in relation to mesothelioma claims. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had not conducted a proper review of the likely effect of the Act reforms on mesothelioma claims, as required by s 48(1) of the Act. 

Value added tax – Supply of goods and services. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal brought by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) in which the FTT had decided that certain dog foods sold by Roger Skinner Ltd were zero-rated as 'animal feeding stuffs' within Sch 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. The tribunal decided that on the evidence, the FTT had been entitled to take the view that none of the products in dispute had been 'meal for ... dogs' and consequently did not fall within the excepted items in Group 1 of Sch 8 to the Act which were standard-rated. 

Immigration – Detention. The applicant, having served a sentence of imprisonment, had been placed in immigration detention. Efforts were made to determine where he was from. Eventually, a deportation order was made while enquiries continued. The applicant was considered to present a high risk of absconding and a sufficient risk of harm and reoffending if released. On his release on bail he issued judicial review proceedings contending that he had been unlawfully detained when there had been no prospect of his removal within a reasonable period. The Administrative Court dismissed his claim as being unfounded. He had been detained for the purposes of deportation and, having regard to his history and criminal record, he had not been detained for more than a reasonable period. Any error in dealing with his case had not crossed the borderline from administrative failing into illegality. 

Copyright – Ownership. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of a contract, the claimants did not own the copyrights in songs written by famous reggae musician, Bob Marley. The claim was dismissed. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant obtained information in relation to the claimant Tata (a multi-national IT consultancy company). Tata was very anxious that the defendant had seemingly managed to obtain access to confidential information and applied for interim injunctive relief requiring the delivery up of certain property belonging to Tata and the deletion of any soft copies of that property and prohibiting the defendant from communicating or disclosing to any person Tata's proprietary and confidential information as well as from inducing or procuring any third party to provide him with Tata's proprietary and confidential information. The Queen's Bench Division allowed both aspects of the interim relief. 

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. 

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.