Latest Cases

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of his immigration detention and the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of accommodation under s 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. On the evidence, the claimant could have accommodated himself, and the Secretary of State had correctly judged when the time had come for release and had not acted unlawfully in having failed to release the claimant earlier. 

National Health Service – Health authority. The claimant issued proceedings for judicial review, seeking a ruling that the defendant clinical commissioning group (the CCG) had an obligation, under s 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006, to provide her with accommodation as part of the health care package with which it should provider her free of charge under the NHS. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, given pending Court of Protection proceedings to determine the claimant's capacity, it was too early to say that the CCG was bound in law to find that the claimant had a reasonable requirement of accommodation which needed to be met out of NHS resources. 

Indemnity – Negligence. Following a flood at a recently constructed block of flats, the building owner commenced proceedings against the main contractor which led to a series of claims against the chain of sub-contractors. The judge found that the mechanical sub-sub-sub-contractor (Robson) had been liable for two defects in workmanship which had been the principal cause of the flood with the result that the Robson was liable under the indemnity clause contained in the agreement by which it had been engaged by HSE. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld that decision and found that HSE's failure to inspect the work properly, even when the breaches should have been detected upon a reasonable inspection of the work, had not shut out its claim under the indemnity. It could not have been presumed that the parties had intended to confine the indemnity clause only to workmanship breaches which had been invisible upon reasonable inspection. 

Practice – Hearing. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to propose to the European Union Council of Ministers to add their names to a list of designated individuals against whom freezing orders would be made as part of international sanctions against Iran. The Secretary of State sought a declaration, under s 6(2) of the Justice and Security Act 2013, for an order that a closed material procedure could be used. The Administrative Court, in making the declaration, held that the conditions under s 6(4) and (5) of the Act had been met, as the material in question was sensitive and there was no practicable alternative to a closed material procedure if the case was to be fairly tried. 

Value added tax – Input tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) ruled on issues arising out of the appeal by the South African Tourist Board (SAFT), which had a branch in the United Kingdom, against a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners (England and Wales), rejecting the taxpayer's claim to recover UK VAT incurred on supplies made to it in the UK. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In earlier proceedings, the claimant Russian shipping companies had alleged that the various defendants had been dishonestly involved in schemes to enrich a Russian businessman. The claimants had obtained freezing orders against the defendants and gave undertakings (the undertakings) to compensate the defendants in the event that the court found them to have suffered loss consequent upon the orders. Some, but not all of the claims had succeeded. Some of the defendants to the orders (the applicants in the present proceedings) alleged that they suffered loss consequent upon those orders and that the orders had been improperly made due to alleged misrepresentation and lack of disclosure and had caused them loss. They applied for directions for an assessment of compensation for loss suffered to be paid, under the undertakings. The Commercial Court, in granting the application, held that the impropriety of the claimants who had obtained the freezing orders had been such that it would be wrong not to enforce the undertakings. The defendants had adduced sufficient evidence that the orders had caused them loss to justify an inquiry as to damages. 

Unfair Dismissal – Right not to be unfairly dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employee's appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal that the employer's letter terminating the employee's employment on the basis that he had reached retirement age had complied with the relevant provisions of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/2408. The EAT decided that the letter had not complied with those provisions and that the form for request of extension of employment beyond retirement age which had accompanied that letter had also failed to comply with those provisions. 

Costs – Employment tribunal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employee's appeal against an award of costs made against him by the employment tribunal. The EAT found that the tribunal had erred in law as it was not possible to tell from the tribunal's reasons whether it had taken into account a potentially relevant matter, namely the employee's means. The matter was remitted to the tribunal. 

Education – Local education authority. The defendant local authority decided to reduce the provision of nursery education from full-time to 15 hours per week. The claimants sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority had failed to have due regard to its statutory obligations under s 118 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, s 22 of the Childcare Act 2006 and ss 17 and 18 of the Children Act 1989. The authority had not been referred to its statutory duties in reaching the decision and, therefore, had not been provided with a framework in which to consider and properly address the issues. 

Costs – Claim. The claimant chairman of the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forums sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to bring into force ss 44 and 46 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in relation to mesothelioma claims. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had not conducted a proper review of the likely effect of the Act reforms on mesothelioma claims, as required by s 48(1) of the Act.