Latest Cases

Pension – Pension scheme. The first claimant nurse successfully brought a claim against the NHS business services authority, contending that she had not been informed by her employer, the NHS trust, that her pension entitlements had fully accrued by a certain date and, as a result, that she had been deprived of the opportunity of taking her pension from that point. A pension ombudsman made findings of maladministration by the authority, as administrator of the relevant pension scheme. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the authority's appeal, held that the ombudsman had been entitled to make the finding of maladministration which he had against the authority on the basis that he had. The authority was guilty of maladministration which had caused the loss suffered by the employee. 

Criminal law – Money laundering. The defendant appealed against his conviction for converting criminal property. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had not erred in permitting amendment of the indictment after a successful no case to answer submission or in ruling that the acts alleged in the amended count had not been subsumed by conspiracies to defraud of which he had been acquitted. Further, the Crown Court had had jurisdiction to deal with the amended count where all the activities alleged had been undertaken in Spain by a non-resident of the United Kingdom in relation to a Spanish bank account. 

National Health Service – Health authority. The claimant issued proceedings for judicial review, seeking a ruling that the defendant clinical commissioning group (the CCG) had an obligation, under s 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006, to provide her with accommodation as part of the health care package with which it should provider her free of charge under the NHS. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, given pending Court of Protection proceedings to determine the claimant's capacity, it was too early to say that the CCG was bound in law to find that the claimant had a reasonable requirement of accommodation which needed to be met out of NHS resources. 

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. 

Rates – Rateable occupation. The tenant of the appellants' property went into liquidation and its liquidator disclaimed all interest in the property. The appellants continued to call on a guarantor to make good the tenant's default and the guarantor paid the sums demanded. The judge held that the appellants were liable for rates charged by the defendant local authority. The appellants appealed by way of case stated. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been correct to find that the first appellant had been the owner within ss 45(1)(b) and 65(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and, therefore, liable for non-occupation rates for the property. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. A number of agreements came into existence with a view to the making of a Spanish film entitled La Mula based upon a novel about the Spanish Civil War (the project). The first claimant was a well known film director and the second claimant was a partnership between him and his wife. The first and second defendants (also husband and wife) were shareholders in the fourth defendant, of which the fifth defendant was a wholly owned subsidiary. The sixth defendant was a company incorporated and wholly owned by the claimant. A dispute arose following the start of the project and the claimants brought proceedings in tort. A master allowed summary judgment against the claimants and refused to allow a proposed amendment which would have, in effect, changed the proceedings. He also made a costs order. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's application for permission to appeal as the master's decision had merely been a robust case management decision and in any event had been correct in law. 

Agriculture – Agricultural land. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that the definition of 'permanent pasture' set out in art 2(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) 1120/2009 had to be interpreted as covering agricultural land which was currently, and had been for five years or more, used to grow grass and other herbaceous forage, even though that land had been ploughed up and seeded with another variety of herbaceous forage other than that which had previously been grown on it during that period. 

Unfair Dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employee brought a claim for unfair dismissal before the employment tribunal following his dismissal after a drugs test by his employer which he had failed. The tribunal decided that the employee had been unfairly dismissed and that there was to be no Polkey reduction to the compensation to which he was entitled. On the employer's appeal against the tribunal's decision not to make a Polkey reduction, the Employment Appeal Tribunal remitted the case to the same tribunal on the basis that the tribunal had overlooked a second expert statement that had controverted the employee's contention regarding the possibility of contamination of the saliva test. 

Damages – Assessment. The defendant was the sole proprietor of a silver business at the London Silver Vaults. The claimant purchased, through the defendant, a large quantity of silver for investment. The claimant demanded delivery of the silver by a certain date, but only some of the silver was delivered. The claimant brought an action, seeking damages for conversion. Judgment was entered in default of acknowledgement of service. The Commercial Court held that the claimant was entitled to recover damages of £406,760.33, based on the fall in value of the silver eventually delivered to it. 

Legal aid – Expert evidence. In private law children proceedings, the district judge had ordered the instruction of a psychotherapist and subsequently ordered that the parties jointly instruct the psychotherapist with the claimant child, who was publicly funded, to bear the costs (the order). The Legal Services Commission refused to pay for the report and the judge, on the claimant's judicial review application, upheld that decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the claimant's appeal, held that the order had been made at the instigation of the children's guardian on the claimant's behalf and it had not fallen foul of s 22(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.