Latest Cases

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. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The European Commission had adopted Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 (the contested decision), having found that certain undertakings, including Reagens SpA, had infringed art 81 EC and art 53 of the European Economic Area by participating in two groups of anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices covering the territory of the EEA and concerning, on the one hand, the tin heat stabiliser sector and, on the other, the epoxidised soybean oil and esters sector. In the present proceedings, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Reagens SpA for annulment of the contested decision or, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on that company. 

Contract – Condition. The claimant agreed to sell to the defendants a freehold property. The issue arose of whether the defendants were liable to pay to the claimant the VAT charge on that transaction. A summary judgment application by the claimant was allowed. An appeal by the defendants was allowed. The claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that it could be said that the parties intended that nothing was or could become payable by the defendants over and above the specified purchase price of £130,000. 

Employment – Continuity. The employment judge, in determining whether the first respondent had transferred from the second respondent to the appellant when there had been a service provision change from the former to the latter, found that there had been an organised grouping. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the appeal, held that the reasons had not disclosed that the judge had engaged with the appellant's case and, if so, what conclusions had been reached in that respect. Further, it had been unclear whether the judge had applied the correct test. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to a fresh tribunal. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire challenged the defendant local authority's grant of outline planning permission so far as it concerned funding for police services. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had failed to surmount the very high threshold for establishing irrationality in the authority's failure to ensure an agreement under s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 secured adequate and timely contributions to policing. Further, the authority had not made an unequivocal representation that could have led the claimant to expect that it would be consulted on the level of and timing of the delivery of the contribution. 

Practice – Service out of the jurisdiction. The claimant was granted permission to serve its contractual claim against the defendant out of the jurisdiction. The defendant sought to set aside the order on the ground that it had never entered into any contracts with the claimant. The Commercial Court, in allowing the application, held that the claimant had failed to show the better argument that it had been a contracting party. Accordingly, the order for service out of the jurisdiction had to be set aside. 

Company – Distribution of assets. M built up a considerable business involving property and entertainment ventures. When he died, his business was split between the parties. A dispute arose and the claimants brought proceedings against P, M's brother. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that P had not, among other things, been in breach of contract, nor had he acted negligently. 

Unfair Dismissal – Constructive Dismissal. The employment tribunal had rejected the employee's claim for unfair constructive dismissal in circumstances where he had given seven months' notice of termination following the alleged breach of contract. The employee's appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal raised a short question of law in relation to s 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act of 1996 as to whether the common law concept of affirmation applied in circumstances where an employee resigned giving notice exceeding the contractual minimum period of notice. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant's extradition to Spain was sought to face trial for terrorism-related offences allegedly occurring in 1991. The judge ordered his extradition and the appellant appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the domestic courts should be extremely reluctant to engage in evaluating the competing arguments about the local law of limitation in the requesting state and the judge had adequately considered the issue. Further, whatever the history might have been, the appellant would not be subject to torture on his return to Spain and would receive a trial that met the requirements of art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant, from Pakistan, obtained entry clearance as Tier 4 (General) student until May 2012 to undertake a course, which was subject to the condition, pursuant to s 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1977, prohibiting him from studying at an institution other than the sponsor body. The claimant left the sponsor body and completed his education at another institution. He was subsequently accepted onto a further study course at another institution, to commence July 2012, and applied for further leave to remain. The defendant Secretary of State refused his application and the claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the condition was valid and the claimant was plainly in breach of it. Further, the Secretary of State had not acted unfairly in refusing the application.