Latest Cases

Road traffic – Careless driving. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, considered the case of a lorry driver who had been convicted of causing the death of an 89 year old man by careless driving. The man had been crossing the road at the time of the collision. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal against conviction and held, amongst other things, that although the judge's direction on the evidence had not been strictly correct, it could not be seen how the defendant's position could have in any way been improved. The court allowed the defendant's appeal against sentence in part and substituted a period of 18 months' disqualifcation from driving for one of 12 months. 

Time – Extension of time. Having failed in their claim for defamation, the claimants were granted an extension of time for filing their points of dispute in respect of the defendant's bill of costs. The defendant appealed that order, but it was dismissed. Subsequently, the defendant did successfully appeal the extension on the ground that the claimants had issued their application out of time and so had been seeking relief from sanctions, which the judge had been wrong to grant. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal as the application for an extension had been made in time and so there had been no relief from sanctions. The court gave guidance on changes to the CPR in respect of applications to extend time. 

European Union – Public procurement. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by Euro-Link Consultants Srl and another company in the same consortium (the applicants) for the annulment of the decision not to award the contract for 'Crimean tourism diversification and support project' to the applicants' consortium and the subsequent decisions rejecting the applicants' complaints. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant was convicted of the alleged historical sexual abuse of his step-daughter. He appealed, relying on the fresh evidence of a man who also worked at the workshop where the abuse had allegedly occurred. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissing his appeal against conviction, held that the fresh evidence did not render the conviction unsafe, since the evidence did not establish that the assaults could not have taken place. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. An incident involving the employee occurred at a client's site and, as a result, the client banned him from the site. A charge of misconduct against the employee arising from the incident had been dismissed but, in the absence of any alternative employment, the employer dismissed him for some other substantial reason. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been fair. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal's finding as to the employer's steps to find the employee alternative employment was not perverse and had been entirely consistent with the evidence. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal allowed the employee's claims that the employer was liable for disability discrimination by proceeding with a disciplinary hearing and an internal appeal, but found that all other complaints of disability discrimination were not well-founded. The employee's request for a review was refused. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal against the refusal of a review, held that the tribunal judge had not committed any error of law in approaching the review. 

Solicitor – Undertaking. The claimant made an application in the course of other proceedings to have the defendants and a solicitor committed for breach of an undertaking which was not an undertaking to the court. The Queen's Bench Division considered the jurisdiction of the court to commit for breach of an undertaking given by a solicitor other than an undertaking to the court; as well as whether the court should exercise any discretion it had to allow committal proceedings to be brought on the facts of this case. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimants challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, affirming the refusal of planning permission for the construction of 23 affordable housing units. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had not unfairly used or misunderstood a written policy statement not considered in the hearing. Further, she had considered all relevant considerations in determining the weight to be attached to the availability of alternative sites. 

Barrister – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant barrister was charged with four offences of professional misconduct by the respondent Bar Standards Board. He was unable to attend the hearing and his application for an adjournment was refused by the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Courts (the tribunal). The hearing proceeded in his absence, and he was disbarred and fined. The appellant appealed against the refusal of an adjournment. The Divisional Court, in allowing his appeal, held that the tribunal had misdirected itself on the approach to be applied when determining whether to grant an adjournment.