Latest Cases

Freedom of information – Information. The claimant complained to the first defendant Information Commissioner in respect of the second defendant local authority's failure to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the requested Excel format and to help him to formulate an appropriate request. The complaints and appeals were dismissed and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the authority had been required to provide the information in the requested format. Further, the authority had complied with its duty to help him to formulate an appropriate request. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant was convicted of the alleged historical sexual abuse of his step-daughter. He appealed, relying on the fresh evidence of a man who also worked at the workshop where the abuse had allegedly occurred. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissing his appeal against conviction, held that the fresh evidence did not render the conviction unsafe, since the evidence did not establish that the assaults could not have taken place. 

Immigration – Asylum. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition in which the petitioner, who accepted that he had not stated additional grounds until served with a refusal of his wife's claim, sought reduction of a decision to certify his asylum claim so as to deny a right of appeal, the court held that at the earliest possible stage the petitioner knew he had to disclose the whole truth and plainly did not do so; the respondent had correctly exercised her discretion and had given reasons for her decision, having fully explored all the proper issues; she was not bound to take account of Country of Origin information and did not err in the way the wife's case was considered. 

Immigration – Asylum – Fresh claim. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a failed Iraqi asylum seeker challenging a decision refusing to treat his further submissions as a fresh claim, the court, inter alia, rejected contentions that the decision-maker had taken an irrelevant matter into account, had failed to consider that another immigration judge might depart from country guidance, had provided no proper analysis of the new material, and had failed to apply anxious scrutiny. 

Natural justice – Judge. The appellant doctor was struck off by a Fitness to Practise Panel (FTPP). He appealed the FTPP's determination on the basis that, inter alia, he had not had a fair hearing because the legal assessor had made disclosures which, he contended, indicated actual or potential bias. The legal assessor and the judge sitting in the appeal had been members of the same barristers' chambers and had a continuing professional relationship. The appellant sought that the judge recuse himself. The judge would recuse himself on the ground that the fair-minded observer, knowing the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that he was biased. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The court dismissed the father's application to discharge care orders in respect of two children, E and N, and granted a placement order in respect of N. Prior to the hearing, the judge had declined to order an addendum report from the psychologist. The father appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that the refusal of a further report was well within the discretion of the judge and, further, it had not been demonstrated that the judge's conclusion as to the children's best interests had been wrong on the material available. 

Mortgage – Priority of mortgagees. The appeal concerned the true construction of ss 26(1)(b) and 31(5) of the Real Estate (Dealers & Developers) Act 1987 in Jamaica, which concerned the priority of charges over land. The Privy Council, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held that the expression 'all other mortgages and charges' in s 31(5) of the Act meant such charges as might remain to be considered, but not those which s 26(1)(b) of the Act required to have been discharged. 

European Union – Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2(a), 12(a) and 13(1)(d), (f) and (g) of Directive (EC) 95/46 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data), and of arts 8(2) and 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The requests had been made in two sets of proceedings between third country nationals who had applied for a residence permit for a fixed period in the Netherlands, and the Netherlands Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum, concerning the Minister's refusal to communicate to those nationals a copy of an administrative document drafted before the adoption of the decisions on their applications for residence permits. 

Employment – Contract of service. The proceedings concerned an appeal against the determination that the defendant university was liable in negligence to the claimant, a former employee of the defendant, in respect of its decision to instigate disciplinary proceedings to investigate an allegation that the claimant had been complicit in the preparation of false and misleading employment references. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal, held that the judge had been wrong to find the defendant in breach of its duty to the claimant, and the reasoning which had led to that conclusion had been flawed. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. S, aged 15, left her mother in Mexico for London with the practical and financial assistance of her father. The mother applied for a summary return of S to Mexico, but S objected on the basis that she was not receiving a reasonable education in Mexico. The Family Division, in allowing the application, held that there had been a wrongful removal or retention. While taking account of S's views, the relevant considerations pointed clearly to S returning to Mexico.