Latest Cases

Commons – Registration. The Supreme Court considered the issue of whether land in Whitby should be registered as a town or village green under s 15 of the Commons Act 2006. At first instance, and on appeal, it was held that the land should not be registered. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court held that, since members of the public had been entitled to go onto and use the land, provided that they used it for the stipulated purpose in s 12(1) of the 1985 Act, namely for recreation, and that they did so in a lawful manner, the appeal would be dismissed. Further, the court considered the case of R (on the application of Beresford) v Sunderland City Council[2004] 1 All ER 160, and held that it was flawed and could no longer be relied upon. 

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. 

Employment – Jurisdiction. The employment tribunal, in considering claims of unfair dismissal and sexual orientation discrimination, held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction as the employee, a US citizen who worked in the United Kingdom for about half of his time, did not have employment with sufficient connection to the United Kingdom. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that there had been no error of law. 

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. 

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. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant bank was granted summary judgment upon its claim against the defendant, relying on the issue estoppel created by the court in an earlier judgment in the proceedings. In light of a subsequent decision by the Court of Appeal, it had become apparent that there was no such issue estoppel. Accordingly, the parties returned to the Commercial Court. The claimant sought that the court require the defendants to pay a sum of money into court or to make an interim payment to the claimant. The Commercial Court declined to order an interim payment or that a sum of money be paid into court. 

Social security – Housing benefit. The claimants challenged reg B13(5) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, SI 2006/213 on the basis that it was manifestly without reasonable foundation not to make provision for an extra bedroom where a disabled child in a housing benefit claimant's family was a person who required overnight care from a non-resident carer. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the means employed by the housing benefit scheme to achieve the government's policy objective had not been inappropriate or disproportionate in its adverse effects. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant had been a learning support assistant whose duties had included pushing a student in her wheelchair. The claimant sustained a soft tissue injury that caused her chronic pain in her shoulder and back. Her claim for damages for personal injury from the school was dismissed, with the recorder finding that there had been no breach of reg 4 of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, SI 1992/2793. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that there had been no error in the recorder's approach, reasoning or conclusion and dismissed the appeal. 

Contract – Penalty. The claimant company sought a remedy against the defendants for breaches by the defendants of their restrictive covenants following the sale of a business by the defendants. The Queen's Bench Division held that in the context of the non-compete covenants the defendants had been in partial breach of the non-compete covenant and the claimant was entitled to judgment for damages to be assessed. 

Immigration – Asylum – Victim of trafficking. Court of Session: In judicial review proceedings by a Nigerian asylum seeker who claimed to be a victim of trafficking and forced prostitution, seeking reduction of decisions to certify her asylum claim as one appropriately requiring removal to Italy and to issue removal directions, the court held that, on the basis that the transfer provisions of Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003 ('Dublin II') were engaged the Secretary of State had failed to exercise the residual discretion available under art 3(2) of Dublin II by considering the risk that the petitioner's rights under art 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be breached on return to Italy by exposure once again to forced prostitution.