Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for the development of 39 private sheltered apartments for the elderly with associated communal facilities. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority had failed to comply with its statutory duty to notify English Heritage of the application and to send it a copy of each of the required notices. However, there was no doubt that the decision would have been the same had English Heritage responded on the application as a result of notification and the discretion not to quash the decision would be exercised. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant had suffered burns when his uncle, who had unknowingly been suffering with florid paranoid schizophrenia, had set fire to himself. He sought damages in negligence under his uncle's household insurance policy. The judge found that his uncle's actions had not been voluntary, therefore he had not owed a duty of care. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal. It held that the actions of a defendant, who was merely impaired by medical problems, whether physical or mental, could not escape liability if he caused injury by failing to exercise reasonable care unless his condition entirely eliminated his responsibility. 

Particulars of claim – Services. The claimant company brought proceedings against the defendants, who were former directors and advisors to it. It served proceedings out of the jurisdiction on the second defendant, W, and the fourth defendant, M. W and M made applications for further time to make applications under CPR Pt 11, and to have the service of the claimant's claim form struck out. The Chancery Division held that, in the circumstances, it would be appropriate to allow the applications. 

Solemn procedure – Defective representation – Misdirection – Sentencing. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal against conviction by an appellant who was found guilty of abducting his 11 year old son, the court rejected contentions that a miscarriage of justice had occurred as a result of defective representation, that the defence of necessity should have been argued at the trial, and that the sheriff had a duty to direct the jury on the question of lawful authority despite counsel conceding that that defence was not being advanced, however it upheld a submission that the 2-year custodial sentence imposed on the appellant excessive and substituted one of 9 months. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The proceedings concerned two appeals which had been heard together because they raised a common question concerning the interpretation of s 85A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellants' appeals, held, inter alia, that the exception to the admission of new evidence in s 85A(3)(a) of the Act was to be read as referring to that element of appeal proceedings which involved a challenge to a decision to refuse leave to enter or to refuse to vary a person's leave to enter or remain, whether or not the appeal also involved a challenge to a decision which fell under another paragraph of s 82(2) of the Act. 

Food and drugs – Food unfit for human consumption. The issue for determination was whether there was a right of appeal against an official veterinarian's assessment of the fitness of meat for human consumption. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimants' application for judicial review, held that a right of appeal was entirely inconsistent with the applicable European Union regulations. Further, as the EU regulations had not made clear or indicated that member states should enact rights of appeal, there was no duty to interpret any provision of domestic law so as to give full effect to EU law and there was no infraction of the right to property. 

Extradition – Passage of time. High Court of Justiciary: In appeals concerning two separate European Arrest Warrants (EAWs) in which the Polish authorities sought an individual's extradition to stand trial on charges relating, inter alia, to theft and attempted theft of petroleum, the court refused the appeal in respect of the first EAW, holding that there was no error of law in a sheriff's decision that it would not be oppressive to extradite the individual by reason of the passage of time, and it allowed the Lord Advocate's appeal in respect of the second EAW, holding that a different sheriff had erred in concluding that the actions of the requesting court 'in deliberately not pursuing the offence' were oppressive and that there was a risk of prejudice to the respondent were trial to take place now. 

Trust and trustee – Removal of trustee. The Chancery Division considered an application to remove the trustees administering the testator's will, where tension had arisen between the testator's family and workers in a company that he had established. The court held that it was appropriate to remove the trustees, who were perceived as having close links with the company, and to appoint the testator's daughters in their place. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Chancery Division dismissed the defendant's application for summary judgment on the claimant's claim that the defendant had been party to a contract for the sale and purchase of property, which it had signed on behalf of an unregistered company, and had been in repudiatory breach of it, pursuant to s 36C(1) of the Companies Act 1985 (s 36C). Nothing in the contract allowed the defendant to argue that there had been a contrary agreement, pursuant to s 36C of the Act. 

Copyright – Infringement of copyright. The claimants were the owner and licensee, respectively, of the worldwide copyrights in eight songs performed by the Beatles at their first concert in the Unitest States of America in 1964 (the copyright works). The Chancery Division, in allowing their claims against the defendants for infringement of copyright, held that the inclusion of the copyright works in a documentary made by the second defendant did not amount to fair use; that there had been no binding contract obligating the claimants to issue a licence to the second defendant; and that the defendants could not rely on proprietary estoppel where the representations relied on had been expressly stipulated to be subject to contract.