Latest Cases

Local government – Statutory powers. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant autistic 15-year-old's judicial review proceedings, alleging that the defendant local authority's assessment had underestimated his and his mother's needs, and had failed to make proper provision for how those needs were to be met. Further, the authority had not breached its statutory duty to produce a care plan, as it would have been premature until the present proceedings had been determined. 

Adoption – Dispensing with consent of parent or guardian. The Family Court approved proposals made by two local authorities regarding the future of the two daughters of the respondent mother and father. It held that, given the mental state of the father and the environment in which the children had been growing up, the parents would be refused contact with the older child and that an adoption order would be made in relation to the younger child. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant company's challenge to the decision of the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State, refusing planning permission for a mixed use development, including a supermarket, apartments and townhouses. The inspector's decision was short, clear, succinct and, having regard to the applicable principles, showed no evidence of unlawfulness or irrationality. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against refusal of an application to set aside summary judgment in respect of the respondent's claim to enforce an adjudicator's award. On the facts, the adjudicator had had jurisdiction to hear the dispute, as he had been addressing different issues to those that had been raised at a previous adjudication. 

Income tax – Emoluments from office or employment. The Privy Council held that the pension of a retiring Vice President of the Republic of Mauritius had been exempt from tax under the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1995 and, more broadly, had been entrenched in the Constitution of Mauritius. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant mineral planning authority's grant of permission for development of a quarry. The planning permission was rendered unlawful by the subsequent issuing of the Secretary of State's direction that it was environmental impact assessment development. 

Sale of goods – Deferred payment. The Commercial Court held that, pursuant to a written sale contract and a deferred payment regime, the claimant had been entitled to its claim for the deferred balance of the purchase price payable for delivered cargo. The written terms of the sale contract and the deferred payment regime had been clear and precise. 

Human rights – Freedom of expression. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal held that authorisations, under s 22 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, had not been compatible with the complainants' rights under art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as there had not been sufficient safeguards where their purpose had been to obtain disclosure of the identity of a journalist's source. However, there was only power to grant a remedy in the case of the third authorisation, as it had not complied with the requirements of s 22 of the Act. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Companies Court, on Codere Finance (UK) Ltd's application for an order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement, held that both the formal requirements for sanctioning the scheme had been met and, in all the circumstances, it was appropriate to exercise the discretion to sanction the scheme. In the circumstances, it could not be seen that the fact that the company had been acquired only recently, and with a view to invoking the scheme jurisdiction, should cause the court, in the exercise of its discretion, to decline to sanction the scheme. 

Appeal – Sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a fine of £500 for a sexual assault offence had been unduly lenient. The judge had erred in his sentencing approach by departing from the applicable Sentencing Council's Definitive Guidelines. In consideration of all the circumstances, a sentence of ten months' imprisonment was imposed for a category 1A sexual assault offence.