Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Court of Protection – Practice. The Court of Protection continued an injunction, prohibiting the identification of C, until 4:30 on the day that judgment was handed down on the basis that the media respondents wished to adduce further evidence and make further representations. The respondents would have a sensible opportunity to be satisfied that what they had put before the court was the full picture concerning their arguments about the public interest in identification, in particular, the public interest in the administration of justice. 

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. 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Lithuania to face trial for dishonestly obtaining property by deception. There had been a significant element of culpable delay, such that extradition was disproportionate to the rights of the appellant and his family, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Costs – Judicial review. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a claimant's appeal which raised the issue of how costs should be determined in the Administrative Court when the parties had settled their differences in an agreed order which recorded that the liability for costs should be determined by a single judge on the papers. The judge had been fully entitled to the view that the claimant had not obtained all the relief he had sought and it had not been shown that her conclusion, that there should be no order for costs, had fallen outside the range of decisions that had been open to her, or that it had been founded on any error of law or principle. 

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.