Latest Cases

Libel and slander – Defamatory statement. The Queen's Bench Division, in deciding a defamation claim brought by the mother of a four year old girl in regard to the alerting of certain 'child safeguarding' services, held that although the words complained of bore the meanings alleged, which were later found to be unfounded, the staff at the defendant hospital had merely been responding in an appropriate manner to the mother's behaviour. 

Tax – Avoidance. The appellants were affected by retrospectively effective legislative changes to s 45 of the Finance Act 2003 relating to stamp duty land tax. They contended that those changes infringed art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (A1P1) and art 6 of the Convention. They were refused permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the respondents. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellants' appeal, held that A1P1 had not been engaged by the imposition of the legislative changes and, if it had been, the changes had been lawful and proportionate. Article 6 was also not engaged, since tax proceedings did not relate to the determination of a 'civil' right or obligation. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The appellant, who was aged 14 at the relevant time, had been photographed during a violent incident at an 'interface area' in Northern Ireland. The police were unable to ascertain his identity through other channels and so his image was authorised for publication in two newspapers with the aim of establishing his identity. The appellant sought judicial review of that authorisation, alleging that publication of his image had breached his right to respect for his private life contrary to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal. The test for a reasonable expectation of privacy had not been satisfied on the facts, which involved the publication, in the recent aftermath of criminal activity, of photographs taken of public rioting for the purpose of identifying those involved. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years had not been unduly lenient, in circumstances where the offender had beaten a homeless man to death. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The claimant was awarded a Framework Agreement (FA) governing the supply of locum doctors following a procurement exercise conducted by the defendant. The Queen's Bench Division rejected the defendant's complaint that the defendant was operating the FA in a way that was materially different to that which was represented at the time of the procurement exercise. 

Bank – Business of banking. The claimant bank, Dexia, and the defendant Italian local authority, Prato, entered into an agreement whereby Dexia became Prato's advisor on debt restructuring and interest rate swaps. Prato failed to meet its obligations under the swaps. Dexia brought proceedings for sums it claimed were due. Prato counterclaimed. The Commercial Court held that Dexia's main claim failed, as the forms it had used had failed to state Prato's right to withdrawal from their agreement. 

Sentence – Custodial sentence. The applicant complained, under art 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that his detention was arbitrary because the Parole Board had refused to recommend his release on the ground that he had not yet completed the extended sex offenders treatment programme, despite the fact that he had been unable to access that course. The European Court of Human Rights, in dismissing the application, held that a real opportunity for rehabilitation had been provided to the applicant and there had been no unreasonable delay in providing him access to courses. Accordingly, there had been no violation of art 5(1) of the Convention. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Lithuania to stand trial for supplying 0.38g of cannabis for about £7.50. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that it was impossible to say that the judge had been wrong in his conclusions that extradition would not be incompatible with the appellant's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and would not be disproportionate. 

Human rights – Right to a fair hearing. The applicant was convicted of conspiracy to murder and, after a retrial, also of conspiracy to murder by way of detonation of improvised explosive devices on aircraft mid-flight. He complained that the adverse publicity between his first trial and his retrial had prevented his receiving a fair trial by an impartial tribunal, contrary to art 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights, in dismissing the application, held that it had not been shown that the impugned publications had been capable of influencing the jury to the point of prejudicing the outcome of the proceedings and rendering his trial unfair. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division granted interim injunctions under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 prohibiting the defendants, whom it was alleged held anti-Muslim views, from entering any mosque or Islamic Cultural Centre or its private grounds within England and Wales without prior written invitation, publishing, distributing or displaying, or causing to be published, distributed or displayed, any words or images, whether electronically or otherwise, which having regard to all the circumstances were likely to stir up religious and/or racial hatred.