Latest Cases

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division dismissed an application for summary judgment or, alternatively, to strike out the claimant's claim, in an action concerning alleged negligent tax advice. The court held that it would be wholly wrong to dismiss the claim at the present stage. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Order for disclosure. The Commercial Court dismissed applications by the claimant company for specific disclosure and further information from the defendant, Barclays Bank plc, against which a claim had been brought for allegedly mis-selling an interest rate swap. The court was not satisfied that the documents would be relevant and, therefore, admissible as similar fact evidence. Further, to require Barclays to undertake the search and disclosure exercise proposed would be disproportionate and oppressive. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court declared that the claimant had been unlawfully detained for a period of 13 months. There had been no unlawful delay at the start of the claimant's detention, but after it had been commented that an impasse had been reached, it had been unreasonable to continue detention and release under a strict contact management regime had been appropriate. 

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a total sentence of six years' imprisonment for the offences of attempted rape and sexual assault was not unduly lenient. The judge's reduction of two years from the eight-year starting point for the attempted rape offence was very generous, but was not unduly lenient. 

Claim form – Service. The Patents Court allowed the claimant company's application for permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction on the second defendant, a company based in China. There was a serious issue to be tried as well as a good arguable case. Further, England and Wales was plainly the proper place to bring the claim. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that it would not be right to make a declaration that s 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was incompatible with Sch 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998, specifically, in the present case, art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Nor would it be appropriate to make a declaration that the 'stop and search' that the claimant had experienced had not been in accordance with the law. 

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a nine-year-and-four-month extended sentence, for the offence of rape, comprising a custodial term of five-years-and-four-months, plus an extended licence period of four years was unduly lenient in the circumstances. The sentence would be quashed and substituted for a 12-year extended sentence, comprising of a custodial term of 7-and-a-half years, plus an extended licence period of 4-and-a-half years. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant NHS trust's appeal regarding a clinical negligence action, in which the judge had found in favour of the claimant. It held that the judge's conclusion, that a clinical note recording a ward round had been inaccurate, had been entirely open to him on the basis of the evidence and well within the ambit of reasonable decision-making. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The Chancery Division held that the claimant bank was entitled to possession of a property as against the defendant company. There was no defence to the claim, because the lease had been granted without the bank's written consent contrary to the express terms of two charges by which the defendant had charged the property with the repayment of sums due to the bank. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by prospective adopters against an order that a child should be removed from their care and returned to the care of her father. Both the hearing itself and parts of the judge's analysis had been flawed to such an extent that the outcome could not safely be relied upon and, accordingly, the order would be set aside and the welfare issue determined afresh by a different judge.