Latest Cases

Freedom of information – Exempt information. The Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO) had, during the course of a raid, collected a list of names of journalists who had obtained information through an investigator. The respondent had sought disclosure of those names under a Freedom of Information request. The ICO refused the request, and that was upheld by the Information Commissioner. The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) determined that some of the names should be disclosed. The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) upheld the FTT's decision, as there had been no error of law in its decision that the information in issue was not 'sensitive personal data' within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 and that its disclosure was for a legitimate purpose, rather than an unwarranted intrusion into the journalists' privacy rights. 

Company – Director. The Chancery Division dismissed an application by the liquidator of a company, under s 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, against the respondent former director and majority shareholder of the company. It held, among other things, that the claim under s 172 of the Companies Act 2006 failed and the respondent had not been in breach of his duty under s 174 of the 2006 Act. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that Directive (EC) 2003/109 precluded national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which required third-country nationals, when applying for the issue or renewal of a European residence permit in the member state concerned, to pay a fee which varied in amount between €80 and €200, inasmuch as such a fee was disproportionate in the light of the objective pursued by that Directive and was liable to create an obstacle to the exercise of the rights conferred by that Directive. 

Housing – Local authority houses. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his appeal, under s 204 of the Housing Act 1996 (the 1996 Act), from the decision by a reviewing officer of the defendant local authority that the accommodation provided for him was suitable within the meaning of s 210 of the 1996 Act. Among other things, it rejected the appellant's argument that s 210(1) of the 1996 Act imposed upon the authority a duty to carry out an inspection and assessment under s 4 of the Housing Act 2004 before making its decision on suitability. 

Child – Care. The Family Court allowed an application by the local authority to withdraw its application for a care order in the case of L, a baby who was suspected of having suffered injuries at the hands of someone in a pool of suspects that included L's parents. The court held that, in the circumstances, leave to withdraw was the only proper and proportionate order available. 

Family proceedings – Divorce. The Family Division adjourned the wife's claims for a lump sum and for any adjustment of property order and ordered that the husband was to pay the wife maintenance pending suit until decree absolute and, thereafter, periodical payments at the annual rate of £120,000 per annum. Further, in the circumstances, the husband would be ordered to pay all of the wife's costs of and incidental to all proceedings between them in relation to financial matters heard on and since May 2013, to include costs on any occasion reserved, but to exclude all costs in relation to which it had already been ordered that there be no order, such costs (if not agreed) to be subject to detailed assessment on the indemnity basis. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker – Fresh claim. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition by a failed Zimbabwean asylum seeker, who challenged a decision refusing to treat his further submissions as a fresh claim, the court held that anxious scrutiny was applied to the petitioner's further representations and it was satisfied that the decision reached in the challenged decision letter was one which a reasonable decision maker was entitled to make. 

Contract – Joint venture – Pre-contractual duties of disclosure – Misrepresentation. Court of Session: In a dispute among the parties to a joint venture agreement relating to the development of an area of land, which four of the five parties held title to parts of, in which the pursuers sought reduction of the agreement on the grounds (i) that they entered into it in reliance on a material misrepresentation by the first and second defenders regarding the ownership of first defender's area of land; and (ii) that the first and second defenders were in breach of a duty to disclose material facts to them at the time when the agreement was entered into, the court held that the pursuers' case based on uberrima fides and a duty of disclosure was irrelevant and they had failed to aver any misrepresentation by any of the defenders or anyone speaking on their behalf, and it dismissed the action. 

Personal injury – Jury trial – Contributory negligence – Damages. Court of Session: Refusing a motion for a new trial in an action by a pursuer who was bitten on her lip by her brother-in-law's dog, a jury having awarded damages of £5,000 in respect of solatium, concluded that the accident was partly due to the fault of the defender and partly the fault of the pursuer, and allocated 85% of the fault to pursuer and 15% to defender, the court held that the jury's conclusion that responsibility for her injury lay almost entirely with the pursuer was not one with which it was entitled to interfere, and nor did it consider that it was entitled to interfere with the jury's award. 

Mental Health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection declined to vary or alter the principle behind an order, made pursuant to s 49 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, requiring the relevant NHS Trust to prepare a report addressing the capacity of the applicant, RS, to conduct the proceedings and to make certain decisions. It held, inter alia, that a question had arisen in relation to RS as to the extent or otherwise of her capacity. It was a matter well-suited for determination by s 49 of the Act, which was a proportionate response, as opposed to an instruction to an independent expert.