Latest Cases

Police – Disclosure of information. The claimant lecturer issued judicial review proceedings, seeking an order quashing the entry in the enhanced criminal records certificate. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, in the circumstances, the decision had been proportionate. 

Immigration – Leave for indefinite stay. The claimant Irish national issued judicial review proceedings, effectively to establish that he had a right to reside in the United Kingdom as a qualified person, which would benefit his brother, G's, application for a permanent residence card. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, since G's second application for a permanent residence card remained outstanding, the claimant's application was premature. 

Firearms – Possession. The defendant had pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited weapon, contrary to s 5(1)(af) of the Firearms Act 1968, in circumstances where he contended that he had legitimately acquired the weapon prior to the coming into force of that provision. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in quashing the conviction, held that, on the true construction of s 39(4) of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which introduced s 5(1)(af) into the 1968 Act, all that had been required was the obtaining of a firearm certificate and that failure to obtain such a certificate was an offence under s 1 of the 1968 Act and not s 5. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that having regard to sch 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and r 3A Court of Protection Rules 2007, SI No 1744/07, what was necessary to secure the rights of a patient effectively transferred from the Irish health care system to the United Kingdom system, was to seek clarification from the Irish Court into whether the patient needed to be made a party to the proceedings. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by AGC Glass Europe SA and other companies for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 5719 final on the rejection of a request for confidential treatment submitted by those companies under art 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU (on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings). 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court held that the applicant Cumbria County Council had not proved its case that injuries suffered by a one-year-old child had been inflicted deliberately. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The claimant applied for: (i) summary judgment and for costs; and (ii) committal of the first defendant for contempt of court. The Queen's Bench Division gave summary judgment for the claimant in relation to the admitted issues and declined to give summary judgment on two disputed matters. Having held that it was appropriate to address the question of contempt at the time of the present proceedings and that, in the circumstances, there was no requirement upon the claimant to obtain leave before bringing the committal proceedings, a fine of £1,000 was imposed on the first defendant. 

Employment – 'Worker'. The appellant was a doctor whose services were provided to the first respondent NHS Trust, through the second respondent. He brought a number of claims before an employment tribunal (the tribunal), including claims for racial discrimination and detrimental treatment due to 'whistleblowing'. The tribunal found that the appellant was not an employee or 'worker' for the purposes of s 230 (3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT), dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the tribunal had been entitled to find hat the appellant was, in fact, a 'client or customer' for the purposes of s 230(3)(b) of the Act, as the appellant was free to work as and when he wanted, and the work undertaken for the respondents was not exclusive. The EAT further held that the appellantt had implicitly abandoned his argument under s 43K(1)(a) of the Act, by not pursuing the argument against the respondents. 

Coroner – Inquest. The claimant applied to quash the inquest into her son's death in a Dubai prison in which the medical cause of death was described as 'unascertained'. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that there had been an insufficiency of inquiry, as the coroner had failed to seek the attendance, whether in person or by video link, of relevant witnesses from Dubai. Accordingly, it was necessary and desirable in the interests of justice that another investigation and inquest should be held. 

Practice – Consent order. Prior to the hearing of an application for relief from forfeiture, the parties had entered into a consent order which had required the representative of the deceased's estate to meet certain conditions by specified dates. The representative applied to the court for an extension of time by which to fulfil those conditions. The judge, in his discretion and in pursuance of furthering the overriding objective at CPR 1.1, granted the extension. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant's appeal as the judge had been correct to consider that he had had the power to extend the time limits in the consent order and he had, on the facts, properly exercised that discretion.