Latest Cases

Estoppel – Proprietary estoppel. The judge had held that the claimant was entitled to a right of way over land owned by the defendant, relying on the equitable doctrine of proprietary estoppel. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that: (i) the present court would not be justified in interfering with the judge's finding that the claimant had believed that it had or would have a right of way via the garden access; (ii) the judge's finding that the claimant had believed it had or would have a right of way across the garden because it had been encouraged so to believe by the defendant had been justified; (iii) there had not been any error in the judge's conclusions on detrimental reliance; and (iv) the judge's evaluation of the issue of unconscionable conduct had not been wrong. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The appellant appealed against a decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel (the Panel), ordering that her name be erased from the medical register for failure to disclose information. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the Panel had not erred, in particular, there had been nothing wrong with its decision that it had been both necessary and proportionate, in the public interest, to direct that the appellant's name be erased from the medical register. 

Immigration – Detention. In a claim for damages for unlawful detention arising out of his administrative detention by the defendant Secretary of State, the Queen's Bench Division decided the case on the facts before it and held that the Secretary of State had been justified in reaching a view that, amongst other things, the claimant's risk of re-offending and the risk that he might abscond were he released from detention was sufficient to justify his continued detention. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In a case in which the defendant local authority had moved residents from a care home, the claimants sought summary judgment on the basis that the authority had no realistic prospect of establishing that the actions of its employees were lawful following a consideration of s 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. There was also an application for disclosure. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed both applications. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Zimbabwean national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing his application for discretionary leave to remain on the basis that it was inconsistent with that in his sister's case. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State's decision had not explained the distinction between the claimant and his sister, who had been given leave to remain. Further, the Secretary of State had amounted disregarded of the statutory appellate procedure by failing to follow or appeal a judge's order. 

Proceeds of crime – Unlawful conduct. In a case where the respondents applied to discharge a property freezing order made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in respect of proceeds of shares belonging to the respondent. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application and rejected S's submission that an order for the restoration of the shares to their lawful owner in consequence of the abandonment of forfeiture proceedings in Canada against her, precluded the prosecuting authorities anywhere else in the world from initiating proceedings under their domestic legislation against the proceeds of sale of those shares located within their jurisdiction. 

Counsel – Disciplinary jurisdiction. Following the determination of an appeal in the appellant's favour, the Visitors to the Inns of Court ordered a rehearing of two charges against him, as there was no basis for saying that the appellant would be deprived of a fair hearing. They further made costs orders against the respondent Bar Standards Board on an indemnity basis as to the previous proceedings and ordered the appellant to pay 70% of the respondent's costs of the present hearing. 

Judgment – Order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, had given a judgment which had quashed an order of the Competition and Markets Authority, although there was an interim stay in respect of part of the CMA's order. The CMA applied, unsuccessfully, to extend the stay. The court found that the period of the stay reflected the period of the measures in the CMA's order and the court could not prolong their life beyond that date. Accordingly, the court did not have jurisdiction to extend the period of interim relief. 

Sentence – Length of sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of two years' imprisonment, following the offender's plea of guilty to an offence of arson, contrary to s 1(2) and (3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, had been unduly lenient. The sentence was substituted for one of three years' imprisonment in circumstances where the fire had been started against the wall of a mid-terraced property. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the defendant local planning authority's decision to grant planning permission for the erection of a single wind turbine, together with associated infrastructure. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no error in preventing a substitute councillor to participate and there had been no misreporting to the committee.