Latest Cases

Bankruptcy – Appeal. The Chancery Division, in dismissing an appeal against a bankruptcy order, held that there had been a clear and careful judgment by the district judge, who had reached a decision that had been well open to her on the evidence. 

National health service – Hospital. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's proceedings, seeking judicial review of the defendants' decision, identifying one hospital, as opposed to another, as one of the four specialist hospitals in the proposed redesign of hospital services. The decision had not been procedurally flawed and unfair, infringed the legitimate expectation arising from the consultation process or been substantively illegal, as having been a perverse decision which had been unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. 

Appeal – Sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, for convictions on four counts of indecent assault on a male person, contrary to s 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, had been unduly lenient. In the circumstances, an immediate custodial sentence of 42 months' imprisonment was imposed for each of the convictions, to run concurrently. 

Prison – Prison conditions. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant prisoners' challenge to the defendant Secretary of State's decisions, refusing them an oral hearing to determine their continued need to be held in category A. Nothing had been demonstrated which showed the Secretary of State's reasoning in refusing to hold an oral hearing had been so flawed or lacking as to be wrong. 

Covenant – Breach. The County Court determined that the claimant was entitled to damages and injunctions in some of his claims against his neighbour in respect of breaches of covenants contained in the conveyance of the land. 

Bank – Banker/client relationship. The Mercantile Court dismissed the claimant's proceedings for negligence, breach of contract and breach of statutory duty against the defendant bank in respect of information and advice given in relation to an interest rate swap. As the bank had not given advice, its limited duty was not to misstate information and the single misleading statement made had not caused the claimant's loss. 

Medicine – Product licence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against the dismissal of judicial review proceedings, challenging the way the defendant Secretary of State, acting by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (the MHRA), had passed information to the European Medicines Agency under the European Union pharmacovigilance regime. The judge had correctly found that the MHRA had not acted unfairly and had rightly refused a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on an appeal against the refusal of permission to a mother of two boys, then aged 16 and 14, to take them from London to live in New York. To the extent that the appeal was allowed in the case of the eldest son and, to a limited extent, the younger son, it was on a basis not argued below, namely, in consequence of the 'no order' principle the court should not have been making or continuing orders about young persons over 16, other than in exceptional circumstances. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant local authority's challenge to the defendant Secretary of State's decision to issue an invitation to tender for the East Anglia Franchise which contained a train service requirement without a minimum requirement that the bidder had to initially provide a service of two, and then four, trains per hour for a station. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on a father's appeal against child arrangements orders and an order made pursuant to s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989. It held, among other things, that, in respect of the s 91(14) order alone, it was clear that the father had not had sufficient notice of the application that had been made and the manner in which it had been made had not complied with case law or proper procedure. On that one issue, the appeal would be allowed.