Latest Cases

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. 

Costs – Group action. The Queen's Bench Division held that the parties costs budgets in a group litigation order were disproportionate and therefore court therefore made a costs management order in accordance with CPR 3.15. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal and dismissed the respondent Nigerian national's application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to refuse to grant her leave to remain under the Immigration Rules. The deputy judge had misinterpreted the guidance in the authorities on the interpretation of para 276ADE(vi) of the Immigration Rules and, hence, had misinterpreted the paragraph itself, giving too narrow a meaning to the concept of 'ties' to Nigeria. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection accepted the evidence of the Office of Public Guardian that the respondent attorney of the patient C was behaving in a manner that contravened his authority and that the lasting power of attorney for property and affairs would be revoked. 

Town and country planning – Trees. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that there was no merit in any of the points raised by way of challenge to the decision letter of the inspector appointed by the first respondent Secretary of State, in which he dismissed the appellant's appeal against a tree replacement notice. There was no force in the appellant's criticisms of the wording of the inspector's decision letter and, insofar as the second respondent local planning authority and then the inspector had relied upon the inclusion of 'seedlings/saplings' when arriving at an estimate of the number of trees on site before the clearance, they had not erred in law.