Latest Cases

Police – Disclosure of information. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the regime which required disclosure of his 31-year-old conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm for which he had been given a two-year conditional discharge and been bound over to keep the peace for 12 months as a breach of his rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that Parliament had been fully entitled to draw a 'bright line' between the offences requiring disclosure and those that did not. Further, if the disposal was always relevant, the 'bright line' might have to be redrawn, and the requisite approach would be disproportionate and unworkable. 

Practice – Civil Procedure Rules. The Chancery Division held that, where an application was made for interim relief under s 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, it was necessary for a claim to be commenced for the relief to be granted. In the circumstances, it would be necessary for the applicants to commence a claim for the relief to be granted. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. In a personal injury claim arising out of a collision between the claimant cyclist and a police car, the judge had found that the driver of the car had been negligent. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissing the defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner's appeal, held that there had been no objection to the finding of facts made by the judge such as to enable the court to interfere. 

Partnership – Dissolution. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, following the dissolution of the partnership that the parties had formed, the claimant had not been entitled to exercise his rights under a settlement agreement, owing to his failure to satisfy a condition precedent that he should provide information as to the identities of the creditors of the partnership. 

Limitation of actions – Triennium. Court of Session: In an action, raised in December 2004, in which the pursuer sought damages for physical and mental abuse he allegedly suffered between 1965 and 1971 whilst at a children's home run by the defenders, the court concluded that it was not prepared to exercise the discretion in terms of s 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 Act to allow the action to proceed notwithstanding the expiry of the triennium in April 1979, as it was not equitable to allow it to proceed given the material prejudice the defenders had suffered as a result of the delay in bringing the action. 

Discrimination – Nationality, on the grounds of. The claimant Afghan nationals who had served as interpreters with the British armed forces in Afghanistan claimed that the Afghan scheme offering financial benefits and relocation opportunities was less generous than the Iraq scheme. The Divisional Court held that the claimants' discrimination claims under ss 29(6) and 39(2) of the Equality Act 2010 failed because the territorial reach of those provisions did not include their circumstances, and the common law discrimination claim had no substance. However, the defendant Secretaries of State had failed to have regard to the matters set out in s 149(1)(b) and (c) of the Act when having formulated the Afghan scheme. 

Prisoner – Detention for public protection – Rehabilitation. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition by a petitioner who, following a successful appeal, was transferred from the State Hospital to prison, and was in the post-tariff stage of his detention, his continued detention being justified solely by reference to public protection, the court rejected the contention that the respondents had failed to comply with their duty to provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to rehabilitate himself and to demonstrate that he no longer presented an unacceptable danger to the public. 

Employment – Arbitration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employees' appeal, held that, on a proper construction of the Employees Regulations 2004, SI 2004/3426, under which employees were entitled to request that their employer negotiate an agreement concerning information and consultation of employees, the Central Arbitration Committee had been correct in deciding that an 'undertaking' had to be a legally registered company. 

Employment – Dismissal. The employee was dismissed following unsuccessful claims for race discrimination and underpayment of his salary, as his claims were found to be 'vexatious, malicious and/or frivolous'. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal before an employment tribunal (the tribunal) which dismissed his claim on the basis that the dismissal was not unfair for the purposes of s 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the employee's appeal, held: (i) the tribunal had adequately considered whether the employer had believed the employee's claim was made in bad faith, and (ii) the tribunal had not addressed the issue of a comparator to the employee's position, as the point had not been raised before it. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The appellant appealed against the decision of the inspector appointed by the first respondent Secretary of State, dismissing its appeal against the second respondent local authority's issue of an enforcement notice. The Planning Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights had not required that the enforcement notice should have been amended so as to protect against the possibility that the structures could in future be used for residential purposes. Further, the inspector had not failed to have regard to relevant matters.