Latest Cases

Contempt of court – Committal. The judge granted the claimant permission to bring committal proceedings against the defendants for contempt allegations, concerning false statements. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had been wrong to conclude that there had been a strong prima facie case on the evidence, demonstrating that the defendants had knowingly made false statements. Further, he had failed to consider the history of the proceedings between the parties and had been wrong to conclude that it had been in the public interest that such allegations should proceed to a full committal hearing. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of point (k) of the second paragraph of art 2 and art 3(3) of Directive (EC) 2009/28 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources). The request had been made in proceedings between Ålands Vindkraft AB (AV) and the Swedish Energy Agency concerning the latter's refusal to authorise, for the purposes of the award of electricity certificates, a wind farm in Finland operated by AV. 

Medicine – Product licence. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings on the basis that, when conducting a re-inspection, the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency (the MHRA) was knowingly gathering evidence in the context and for the purpose of infringement proceedings which had been brought against it under Commission Regulation (EC) 658/2007. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it could not declare that the MHRA's response to the European Medicines Agency's requests under art 8(3) of the Regulation had been unlawful or rule substantially rule on the contention that the material provided contained errors. Further, the MHRA's conduct had not been procedurally improper and unlawful in failing to advise the claimant of the potential use of the information. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant was a corporate entity which provided services to the United Kingdom and other governments. The defendant was a former employee of the claimant and the author of at least two blogs in which confidential information was published. The claimant sought an order requiring the respondent solicitors for the defendant, to disclose his name. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application and held that the disclosure of the client's name would have the practical effect of disclosing confidential communications between lawyer and client. 

Pension – Equal treatment of men and women. The appellant male-to-female transsexual had not applied for a gender recognition certificate, as she did not wish to annul her existing marriage. Her application for a state pension at the pensionable age for a woman was refused on the basis that she was a man. The First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) and the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) dismissed her appeals. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the requirement to annul her marriage did not breach the principle of equal treatment in Council Directive (EEC) 79/7 and was not discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010. 

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. 

Will – Construction of will. The daughter and former solicitor of Lucian Freud as the executrices of his will, contended that the will was subject to a secret trust. They sought a declaration that, by the will, they were absolutely entitled to the deceased's residuary estate. The defendant contended that the residuary estate had been given to the claimants to hold on trust and that the trust was a half secret trust. The Chancery Division, in allowing the claim, held that, on the true construction of the will, the claimants were absolutely entitled to the deceased's residuary estate. 

Criminal law – Costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered an application for costs following a private prosecution by Virgin Media Limited in which the defendant had been alleged to have provided set-top boxes where the encryption firmware had been compromised, allowing the user to view television channels free of charge. In making its award, the court considered the reasonableness of instructing the solicitor and counsel retained by the company. 

Housing – Homeless person. The issue before the court was whether a court in possession proceedings under the Housing Act 1996 should approach a defence based on disability discrimination in the same way as it would approach one based on art 8 of the European Convention, on Human Rights and if so whether the judge had correctly applied that approach. The effect of recent case law was that where a tenant relied on art 8(1) as a defence to possession proceedings brought by an authority or a social landlord, he had to show a seriously arguable case and that the threshold for raising an arguable case on proportionality was a high one, which would only succeed in a small proportion of cases. The Court of Appeal endorsed that approach. 

Costs – Security for costs. The claimants obtained permission to appeal a judgment where the defendant's construction of a agreement was favoured by the judge. The defendant applied for security for the costs of the appeal on the basis, inter alia, that there was reason to believe that they would be unable to pay the defendant's costs of an appeal if ordered to do so. The Court of Appeal allowed the application and made an order for security for costs in the sum of £50,000.