Latest Cases

Contempt of court – Committal. N's son was put into foster care and orders were made by the court compelling N to take down the son's Facebook page and forbidding him from harassing social workers concerned with the case. N made posts on the Facebook page and sent messages to social workers. The Family Division held that N was clearly in contempt of court and granted the local authority's application for his committal to prison. 

Value added tax – Exemptions. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) ruled on an appeal by Bookit Ltd against a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners which had decided that the taxpayer's services consisting of credit and debit card handling fees charged by the taxpayer to customers making advance bookings for cinema tickets at Odeon cinemas, were not exempt within 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision that her representations, relying upon art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, did not amount to a fresh claim for asylum. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had addressed herself to all of the relevant considerations and had formed a view which was not one which was irrational or untenable. Further, the claimant had not established a private life of sufficient strength to lead to the Secretary of State's decision being overturned. 

Criminal law – Committal. The Privy Council dismissed the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his claims for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, in circumstances where it had been it was unsurprising that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago had not been prepared to draw the inference that the prosecutor had acted with malice in proceeding with the prosecution against the appellant. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant suffered injury in an accident in a car driven by the first defendant in Germany. Proceedings were issued in England. The issue for determination was whether German or English law applied to the assessment of damages, which turned on the application of art 4 of Council Regulation EC 864/2007 (on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations) ('Rome II'). The Queen's Bench Division held that the law applicable to the claim in tort was German law. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following the claimant's success in obtaining an injunction against the defendant, the claimant applied, pursuant to CPR 36.14(3)(d) in the prescribed percentages, calculated by reference to the sum awarded in respect of costs. The Queen's Bench Division held that the imposition of an additional liability would involve an element of penalty which the court did not consider just to impose on the defendant. The court would therefore decline to impose on the defendant an order for an additional amount. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant issued proceedings, seeking the quashing of the defendant local authority's grant of planning permission for the installation of two wind turbines. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it would have been driven to conclude that the reasons given in the planning officer's screening opinion had been inadequately expressed, but for the contents of the witness statement. Further, the decision had not been irrational and the planning officer had not misdirected herself as to the expression 'likely to have significant effects'. 

Costs – Costs order. Issues arose regarding costs in relation to parties against whom the claim had been stayed. Having given consideration to the relevant principles in operation where there had been no determination of liability, the Technology and Construction Court held that in all the circumstances, the appropriate order as between the claimants and the relevant parties was that there should be no order as to costs except for certain discrete applications. 

Children's hearing – Right to challenge decision of children's hearing. Court of Session: In appeal against a sheriff's refusal of an appeal to her against a decision of a children's hearing as incompetent, the court held that the sheriff was fully entitled on the facts found by her to hold that the appellant was not a 'relevant person' within the meaning of s 93(2)(b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, and thus did not have the right to challenge the decision of a children's hearing through an appeal to the sheriff and, ultimately, to the Court of Session. 

Company – Take-over bid. The claimant companies had been beneficial shareholders in the defendant company. The directors of the defendant imposed restrictions on the claimants under Pt 22 of the Companies Act 2006 and pursuant to its articles of association. The claimants commenced derivative actions challenging those restrictions. The defendant's submission that the claimants had not had standing to bring the claims was dismissed by the Chancery Division. The claimants succeeded in part. The defendant and one of the claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal, holding that the defendant's power to impose the restrictions had not been used for an improper purpose. The claimant's submission that the judge had erred in finding that the disclosure notices issued under s 793 of the Act had been valid was dismissed, as was its submission that the judge had erred in finding that the defendant had had reasonable cause to believe that the claimant's disclosure had been false or materially incorrect.