Latest Cases

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. 

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division dismissed the defendant's application to strike out the particulars of claim in proceedings concerning an alleged breach of confidence. It held that the claim was not barred by limitation and that, although damages in the case were not likely to be large, the case was not rendered an abuse of process by reason of being a nugatory claim. 

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. 

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. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Chancery Division dismissed the first defendant's application challenging its jurisdiction to hear claims for commission said to be due for the sale of properties and for breach of fiduciary duty, among other things, where he had waived any jurisdiction point when he had submitted to the jurisdiction in earlier actions and where the third claimant had given and undertaking to stay or dismiss an action in Kuwaiti in so far as it reflected the relief sought in the present action. 

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. 

Coroner – Inquest. The Divisional Court, in refusing the claimant's application to reopen the defendant coroner's inquest into the death of his son, held that the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service subsequently considered that there had been a case of gross negligence manslaughter to answer did not demonstrate that the coroner had improperly concluded there had been no unlawful killing. Further, the coroner's decision could not be quashed on the basis that he might have been acting unlawfully in having reached a conclusion contrary to the evidence. 

Contract – Construction. The Technology and Construction Court held that the applicant company's application to strike out the Pt 20 claim brought against it, or to obtain summary judgment, would fail where the applicant was unable to demonstrate that the first and second defendant companies had no real prospect of succeeding on the Pt 20 claim. 

Practice – Transfer of proceedings from or to the Technology and Construction Court. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claimant's application to transfer his claim brought against the defendant in the Central London County Court (Technology and Construction List), into the present court. It was not appropriate for the low-value claim to be transferred. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Judge's charge – Mixed statements by accused. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of robbery and murder, attempting to defeat the ends of justice and possessing heroin, who contended that the trial judge had misdirected the jury as to the significance as evidence of the exculpatory parts of mixed statements he had made, the court held that the jury were misdirected, they were then correctly directed, at least in relation to one statement, but immediately thereafter again misdirected in a fundamental respect, and the misdirection had led to a miscarriage of justice.