Latest Cases

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The proceedings concerned the care of a young man, M, who was autistic. His parents, especially his mother, E, contended that care for M had been ineffective and that his condition had been the result of the use of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination. The local authority sought orders stating that E had invented symptoms and failed to assist with M's care. The Court of Protection granted the orders and refused E's application to be reinstated as M's deputy. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant and the defendant entered into two written agreements, a master agreement (the master agreement) containing general terms and conditions and an insulation scheme event transaction document (the document). The claimant contended that under the terms of the document the defendant was in breach of contract. The defendant denied that it was in breach of the document or at all. Furthermore it sought to rely on, inter alia, cll 10.1 of the master agreement which excluded liability for indirect losses and limited liability for direct losses to £1,000,000. The claimant denied that the clause limited or excluded liability for the losses it suffered as a result of the breach of the document.The Queen's Bench Division held that cl 10.1 of the master agreement had not excluded liability for the claimant's losses. 

Court of Appeal – Leave to appeal. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners had issued proceedings regarding a missing trader intra-community fraud. Following a trial of sample claims, some of the allegations were found to be proved and the defendants were ordered to pay the sums lost in revenue. The defendants sought permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ordered that conditions regarding payment into court of the judgment sum be attached to the application for permission to appeal and ordered a stay of the execution of the judgment between the payment into court of the judgment sum and determination of the appeal. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the Secretary of State had failed to consult the public of the Republic of Ireland in accordance with art 7 of Directive (EU) 2011/92 in granting development consent for the construction of a European pressurised reactor nuclear power station. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the application, held that the test was not whether the project was 'likely to have significant effects on the environment' applying to Council Directive (EEC) 92/43, but the 'real risk' test adopted in domestic authorities. It further refused to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. 

Judicial review – Referendum – Entitlement to vote. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in judicial review petitions by two convicted prisoners who would be serving prison sentences on 18 September 2014, which made them ineligible to vote in the independence referendum to be held in Scotland on that date, and who challenged their exclusion from the franchise, the court held that the Lord Ordinary had not erred in dismissing the petitions. 

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. 

Magistrates – Warrant. The claimants sought judicial review of the execution of warrants at their homes and business premises by the defendant Environment Agency. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, taking the provisions of s 108(6) of and Sch 18 to the Environment Act 1995 together, seven days' notice was not required to be given in the cases set out in s 108(6)(b) of the Act. Further, the warrant had extended to a bungalow on one property and the defendant's officers had not gone beyond their statutory powers. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of his immigration detention and the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of accommodation under s 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. On the evidence, the claimant could have accommodated himself, and the Secretary of State had correctly judged when the time had come for release and had not acted unlawfully in having failed to release the claimant earlier. 

European Union – European institutions. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal by the European Council by which it had sought to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union. In that judgment, the General Court had annulled in part the Council's decision refusing Ms in't Veld full access to a document containing the opinion of the Council's Legal Service concerning a recommendation from the European Commission to the Council to authorise the opening of negotiations between the European Union and the United States of America for the conclusion of an international agreement to make available to the United States Treasury Department financial messaging data. 

Company – Director. The Companies Court dismissed the claimant's appeal against an order disqualifying him from acting as a director of a company for 12 years. The order was not obtuse or conceptually incoherent as alleged by the claimant. Further, the registrar's judgment in relation to the length of disqualification was in accord with principle and authority.