Latest Cases

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Chancery Division considered an application for approval of a cross-border merger. It held that, notwithstanding that there were outstanding conditions, the merger was one that the court ought to approve. 

Compensation – Crime. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of his claim for compensation for a miscarriage of justice, under s 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it was clear that the Secretary of State's decision to refuse the claimant's claim for compensation had not been vitiated by any public law error and, thus, had not been unlawful on public law grounds. 

Costs – Order for costs. In an earlier judgment, the court had dismissed a claim by the claimant company (the company) and had given judgment for the defendant on its counterclaim. The Commercial Court allowed the defendant's application for a non-party costs order against the managing director and sole shareholder of the company, where he had been in the position to control the proceedings. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation of art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights in proceedings leading to the grant of warrants for the applicants' further detention under Sch 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000, in particular, absent express legislative provisions for the appointment of a special advocate. Further, search warrants issued could not be described as excessively wide and they had been necessary in a democratic society, within the meaning of art 8(2) of the Convention. 

Immigration – Detention. The Supreme Court in dismissing the appellant's appeal against his conviction for membership of a proscribed organisation held that the judge had been correct in allowing evidence of the appellants Swedish asylum hearing and in dismissing the appellant's case based on Council Directive (EC) 2005/85 (on minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status). 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division before a trial of the preliminary issue of whether publications had caused or were likely to cause serious financial loss to the claimants pursuant to s 1(2) of the Defamation Act 2013 made various orders and directions in response to applications by the parties. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission to extend a development, including by constructing a testing and evaluation track for performance cars. The Planning Court held that conditions had failed to give effect to the authority's intention to impose controls with respect to the variable character of the noise, but refused to quash the planning permission. 

Social security – Disability living allowance. The claimant appealed against the dismissal of his application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to adopt a 20m walking threshold for personal independence payment enhanced rate mobility. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, rejected claims that the consultation had not provided a proper opportunity to comment on the threshold and had not given sufficient information to enable intelligent responses. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant applied for an order quashing the decision of the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing his appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of planning permission for a bungalow and associated curtilage. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State's inspector had applied para 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework, had not elided the impact on the openness of the Green Belt and visual impact, and had given adequate reasons. 

Barrister – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant barrister appealed against the Council of the Inns of Court disciplinary tribunal's finding that he was guilty of professional misconduct. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the tribunal had given adequate reasons and had been fully aware of the context, and that the conduct was sufficiently serious as to amount to professional misconduct.