Latest Cases

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. Concerns were raised as to the competence of the claimant surgeon, and he was referred to a disciplinary panel. He applied for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant NHS trust from referring his case to a capability hearing panel. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that, among other things, on the true construction of the relevant standards procedure, an employer could proceed to a capability hearing even if it had not received advice that a practitioner's performance was so fundamentally flawed that no action plan had a realistic chance of success. 

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. 

Immigration – Detention. The defendant Secretary of State detained the claimant Dutch national on the basis that he was subject to non-automatic deportation due to his criminal offence. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no breach of a duty to make inquiries as to the claimant's mental health and there was wholly insufficient evidence to establish that he had had a serious mental illness that could not be adequately managed in detention. Further, there had been additional features justifying detention in the claimant's case, including the risk of his committing further offences and the risk of his absconding. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant had invested in a fund operated by the defendant, a Gibraltar company, which had lost all its capital. The claimant brought a claim in negligence and breach of contract against the defendant and served the claim form, without permission, outside the jurisdiction under CPR 6.33(2)(b)(iii) and art 23 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001. The Commercial Court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the service of the claim where the claimant had a good arguable case that there had been a concluded agreement, within art 23 of the Regulation. 

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. 

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. 

Arbitration – Award. Following a dispute between the parties, the claimant company, Diag, succeeded against the defendant Czech Republic in an arbitration. It sought to enforce the arbitration award in a number of countries, including Austria. The Supreme Court of Austria held that the award had not yet become binding on the parties. Diag, sought to enforce the award in the English court. The court held that the Supreme Court of Austria's decision gave rise to an issue estoppel that would prevent Diag from enforcing the judgment in the English court. 

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. 

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. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants in a human rights claim regarding prison conditions in the United Kingdom had their cases struck out. They applied to have them reinstated. The Queen's Bench Division having regard to CPR 3.9 held that on the facts no relief from sanction would be granted in each of the five actions and they would consequently remain struck out.