Latest Cases

Burial – Body. The Chancery Division dismissed an appeal by parents of a deceased to set aside a decision by a deputy judge declaring that the claimant NHS Trust had lawful possession of the body of the deceased and was entitled to make arrangements for the funeral and disposal of the same. Among other things, there was no fair and reasonable basis for the conclusion that the post-mortem of the deceased had been misconducted and no extant proceedings, which would require the body either as evidence or to conduct further tests upon. 

Company – Administration. The Chancery Division allowed the Official Receiver's application, under s 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986, for an order that the respondent, a Hong Kong resident, was to produce a witness statement, with supporting documents. Section 236(3) of the Act had extra-territorial effect and, provided the considerations identified in previous authority were satisfied, the court had jurisdiction to require a person resident outside the jurisdiction to submit to the court an account of his dealings with a company, or to produce any books, papers or other records in his possession or under his control relating to the company. 

Local government – Council tax. The Administrative Court held that the defendant local authority's decision, replacing the 100% reduction in council tax for those eligible for support because of their lack of resources with an 85% reduction, had not been discriminatory. However, there had been a failure by the authority to have due regard to the public sector equality duty. 

Library – Public library. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's application for judicial review, determined the meaning of the defendant local authority's decision with respect to libraries and held that any challenge to a decision to close the libraries was premature. It further held that the authority's decision had not been irrational or its consultation unlawful. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The Family Division in a case for financial provision following a divorce in a six year marriage considered the various factors in s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1925 and came to conclusion on a clean break solution taking into account their pension entitlements. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant Afghani national's application for judicial review, held that he had not been unlawfully detained in immigration detention. The local authority's age assessment was sufficient for immigration officers to treat him as an adult and that had not changed on receipt of his birth certificate, the authenticity of which was doubted. 

Immigration – Appeal. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) gave guidance on appeals against tribunal costs orders made in immigration judicial review proceedings. It then struck out the claimants' applications for permission to appeal, as no valid application had been made due to the egregious contravention of r 44(7)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, SI 2008/2698. 

Local authority – Contract. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an association's appeal against the strike out of its defence and summary judgment against it in respect of a local authority's claim for specific performance of a contractual obligation that it re-transfer a site back to the authority for failure to develop the site by the target date. The public law defences of legitimate expectation and abuse of power were not available in circumstances of a commercial contract dispute. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The Administrative Court held that the defendant Secretary of State's decision as to the location of the claimant failed asylum seeker's accommodation and the refusal to provide him with additional travel expenses to visit his son had been flawed. The proper course was to quash the decision insofar as it rejected the application for costs of reasonable travel. 

Compensation – Crime. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the claimant's judicial review proceedings, held that the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing him compensation under s 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 had been lawful. In any event, the claim was academic because the Secretary of State would have been bound to re-determine the question applying the new statutory definition of 'miscarriage of justice' inserted by s 175 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.