Latest Cases

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that in the circumstances, a custodial sentence which did not include a finding of dangerousness, under s 227 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, was unduly lenient. An extended sentence as imposed. 

Competition – Rules on completion. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant medical reporting organisation's challenge to the legality of part of the government's reforms to handling soft tissue whiplash claims. The system was not incompatible with national and European competition law, as the interested party had not abused a dominant position in the relevant market by administering the system in accordance with the requirements imposed by the defendant Secretary of State. 

Medical practitioner – Appeal against determination of disciplinary committee. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant registered nurse's appeal against a 12-month suspension order imposed by a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee (the panel) of the respondent Nursing and Midwifery Council. The panel's judgment had been both reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of the case, and its reasons had met the required standard. 

Insurance – Scheme of arrangement. The Companies Court sanctioned an insurance business transfer scheme, under s 111(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, relating to the general United Kingdom insurance business conducted by two subsidiaries of the Group Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc and, in respect of certain previously transferred business, by Aviva Insurance Ltd. 

Dentist – Disciplinary proceedings. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant clinical dental technician's appeal against his suspension from the dental care professionals register for 12 months. The decision relating to sanction and the reasoning behind it had been entirely appropriate, and the appellant had no legitimate grounds upon which to successfully challenge them. 

Bank – Securities. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant issuers' appeal, granted a declaration that a 'Capital Disqualification Event' had occurred, thereby entitling the issuers to redeem enhanced capital notes in accordance with their terms. 

Habeas corpus – Grounds for grant of writ of habeas corpus. The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's application for habeas corpus. Assuming the abuse of process jurisdiction applied, the applicant's continued imprisonment, without the re-trial required as a condition of his surrender under a European arrest warrant, was not an affront to justice and would not undermine the public's confidence in the justice system. 

Company – Liquidation. The Chancery Division ruled on an application by liquidators of Premier Motor Auctions Leeds Ltd and another company for orders that litigation expenses of proceedings brought by the companies be approved and authorised by the court, pursuant to r 4.218E of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925 and for orders that the application be heard in private and not be served on a creditor of the companies (Lloyds) until after the final determination of the proceedings. The court held that the circumstances of the case were not sufficiently exceptional to justify derogation from the open justice principle. A question of construction was raised as to whether the condition specified in r 4.218B(1)(c) was satisfied and whether it could be said that the liquidators would have to have recourse to property comprised in or subject to Lloyds' floating charge in order to pay litigation expenses. However, it was not appropriate to deal with the application in the absence of Lloyds and the application and the evidence were ordered to first be served on Lloyds. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing an appeal against a deportation decision, held that First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) had taken into account all the relevant considerations under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The FTT had not made any express reference to Üner v The Netherlands ([2006] 3 FCR 340) or Maslov v Austria ([2008] ECHR 1638/03), but it had not needed to since: (i) it had had regard to all the relevant considerations; and (ii) the appellant had not been lawfully present in the United Kingdom. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the employment tribunal's explicit conclusion, that the average shorter length of service of Muslim chaplains had not been the result of any discriminatory practice on the part of the prison service, meant that they had not been put at a particular disadvantage within the meaning of s 19(2)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 and, accordingly, the claim of indirect discrimination had to fail.