Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. A football stadium was subject to a planning condition that only three music events could be held there per year, only one of which could fall on a Sunday. The second defendant local authority and the first defendant Secretary of State's planning inspector refused the claimant's application to vary that condition to increase the number of music events held at the stadium. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no error of law in the decision. 

European Union – Public procurement. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by Euro-Link Consultants Srl and another company in the same consortium (the applicants) for the annulment of the decision not to award the contract for 'Crimean tourism diversification and support project' to the applicants' consortium and the subsequent decisions rejecting the applicants' complaints. 

European Union – Access to information. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered the appeal brought by Mr Guido Strack against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court had not granted in full Mr Strack's form of order requesting annulment of several decisions of the European Commission relating to his applications for access to various documents based on Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents). 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The defendants were sentenced for offences which included threatening and injuring numerous people for the purpose of enforcing debts of a known drug-dealer. The first defendant was sentenced to a total sentence of 17 years' imprisonment for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and for firearm offences. The second defendant was sentenced to a total of three years and eight months' imprisonment for two counts of affray. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowing the appeal of the first defendant, held that the total sentence was manifestly excessive and that a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment overall was appropriate. On the facts, there was nothing excessive or wrong in principle in the sentence imposed on the second defendant and his appeal was dismissed. 

Immigration – Refugee. The claimants, T and N, were Iraqi refugees who had taken refuge in Syria and their cases were referred to the Secretary of State for consideration of their resettlement to the United Kingdom. Their applications were refused on the ground that their resettlement in the UK would not be conducive to the public good. The Secretary of State maintained the decision and the claimants sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the attempt to impose an obligation upon the Secretary of State to consider their applications in accordance with the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 was unnecessary and would be contrary to the preservation of absolute flexibility. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal allowed the employee's claims that the employer was liable for disability discrimination by proceeding with a disciplinary hearing and an internal appeal, but found that all other complaints of disability discrimination were not well-founded. The employee's request for a review was refused. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal against the refusal of a review, held that the tribunal judge had not committed any error of law in approaching the review. 

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the action brought by Moallem Insurance Co for: (i) annulment of the European Council which had listed the applicant in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP); (ii) annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 (implementing Regulation (EU) 267/2012 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) 961/2010) in so far as it had listed the applicant in Annex IX to Regulation 267/2012; and (iii) a declaration that art 12 of Decision 2010/413 and art 35 of Regulation 267/2012 were inapplicable to it. 

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. 

Child – Order. The Chinese mother applied to the court for permission to take the child J on holiday to China. The father objected on the basis that there was a risk of abduction. Having regard to the welfare checklist in s 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, the Family Court held that it was in J's best interest to travel to travel to China in the summer. It was important that she kept contact with her Chinese heritage. Further there was no evidence of abduction. 

Warrant – Search warrant. A search and seizure warrant was issued and executed at the claimants' home and business address, and a large quantity of material was seized. They issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the warrant had been unlawfully issued and the documents wrongly taken on the basis of material non-disclosure. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, determined the applicable test for setting aside a warrant. Applying that test, it set aside the warrant, as there had been a material non-disclosure which might well have led the judge to issue a warrant which, had there been full candour, he would have refused to issue.