Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The child S, died in hospital. Post mortem investigations found that she was suffering from a number of injuries usually associated with non-accidental trauma, such as bone fractures, a scalp injury and intra-cranial bleeding. In addition, S, suffered from a number of conditions, all linked to a unique combination of genetic abnormalities. Following a fact finding hearing, the Family Division held that the local authority had not proven on a balance of probabilities that S's injuries had been inflicted non-accidentally. 

Particulars of claim – Amendment. The proceedings concerned the award of a contract to provide legal services. The claimant solicitors' firm was unsuccessful in a tendering process, and brought proceedings against the defendant Insolvency Service. It sought to amend its particulars of claim. The court dismissed the application, and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the appeal would be allowed in respect of the amendment, and that a suspension regarding the award of the contract would be maintained regarding one of the tenderers. 

Local government – Council tax. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal by way of case stated against the justices' decision, committing him to prison for 90 days, suspended on payment of £100 per month in respect of his liability for unpaid council tax. The effect of the order was that the period for repayment would exceed six years, which was simply too long. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The Queen's Bench Division awarded the claimant doctor £45,000by way of damages for libel, following the publication of an article in the Daily Mail and Mail Online. The court held that the defamatory statements made about the claimant had not been justified, the facts and matters on which the comments had been made, had not been proved and the article could not be defended as honest comment. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued a Decision Notice against the applicant director of a mortgage and insurance company stating that it had decided to: (a) withdraw his approval to perform controlled functions in relation to the company; and (b) make a prohibition order against him. The applicant contested the FCA's decision and referred the Decision Notice to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). The tribunal dismissed the reference, deciding that although the applicant had not been deliberately dishonest, he had lacked integrity in his business dealings and his dealings with the FCA. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant surveyors sought contribution, under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, from the defendant solicitors in respect of money they had paid to a mortgage lending company in settlement of its claim for damages for negligent over-valuation of a property. The Chancery Division, in allowing the surveyors claim, held that the solicitors had breached their duty to report a discrepancy between the purchase price of the property and the valuation provided by the claimant to the lender. On the facts, there would be equal apportionment of responsibility. 

Contract – Warranty. The parties contracted for the construction of a number of wind turbine generators. It became apparent that the design of the turbines had been flawed, and a dispute arose. The Technology and Construction Court held that, among other things, the defendants were entitled to a declaration that the problem had arisen as a consequence of a breach of the agreements between the parties by the claimant company. 

Immigration – Appeal. The proceedings concerned an appeal by the appellant against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), which had set aside the First Tier Tribunal's (FTT) decision to allow his appeal against the Secretary of State's refusal to revoke a deportation order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the Upper Tribunal had not erred in law in setting aside the FTT's determination and, further, had not erred in re-deciding the issue de novo. 

Criminal law – Cost. The judge refused the claimant costs of an abortive hearing, under s 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, as he could not identify 'the party whose fault it was'. The claimant sought judicial review, but the parties invited the court to treat the matter as an appeal by way of case stated. The Divisional Court held that the judge had erred in law. Proceedings as on an appeal by way of case stated, it held that there had been a clear mistake without satisfactory explanation, which had caused the hearing to be abortive and ordered the prosecution to pay the claimant's costs. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant was a Turkish worker who had been employed in the United Kingdom for four years before being refused indefinite leave to remain based on art 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 made pursuant to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement. He was refused permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the decision to grant him a further three years' leave. He was granted permission to appeal in respect of the 'standstill clause' at art 13 of the Decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed his appeal as it was clear under the caselaw from the Court of Justice of the European Union that arts 6(1) and 13 of the Decision were directed at different situations and his rights were covered by art 6(1) as applied by the Secretary of State.