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. 

Human Rights – Inhuman or degrading treatment. Two separate claims had been brought against two police forces seeking damages and declarations arising out of alleged failures by the police to conduct effective investigations into allegations of crimes committed against the claimants. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, clarified the scope of the duty to investigate under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and dismissed the police's appeal in the first case and the claimant's appeal in the second. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the notion of 'natural mineral water from one and the same spring' contained in art 8(2) of Directive (EC) 2009/54 had to be interpreted as referring to a natural mineral water that was drawn from one or more natural or bore exits, and which originated in one and the same underground water table or in one and the same underground deposit, where, at all those natural or bore exits, that water had identical characteristics, pursuant to the criteria specified in Annex I to the Directive, that remained stable within the limits of natural fluctuation. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The claimant contractor sought summary judgment on its application to enforce an award against the defendant employer, under a construction contract, granted in the second of two adjudications. The Technology and Construction Court held that documents sent by a claimant to the defendant did not amount to a valid application for an interim payment, or a valid payee's notice and as such, the adjudicator in the second adjudication had been wrong to conclude to the contrary. The claimant was not entitled to summary judgment in respect of the second adjudication as no sums were due to it as a consequence of it. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant sought judicial review of his detention by the defendant Secretary of State under immigration powers for periods totalling seven years and two months. The Administrative Court held that the claimant had been unlawfully detained between 13 July and 10 December 2013. Accordingly, he was entitled to damages for false imprisonment, which were more than nominal, to be assessed. Further, the Secretary of State had not refused to determine the claimant's application for accommodation under s 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the issue of a further deportation order in the claimant's correct name had not been unlawful. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The appellants had brought proceedings challenging the decision to use National Savings and Investments (NS&I) to deliver the Government policy of tax-free childcare. In order for NS&I to administer TFC, it was necessary to amend an outsourcing contract between NS&I and Atos IT Services Ltd. The claim was dismissed and the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellants' appeal, holding, inter alia, that the amendment of the contract would not be unlawful. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appellants' appeal, held, inter alia, that the proposed amendment to the contract would not considerably extend the scope of the contract in terms of reg 72(8) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102 and, therefore, it did not did not involve substantial modifications under reg 72(1)(e). 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that art 7(4) of Directive (EC) 2008/115 should be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby a third-country national, who was staying illegally within the territory of a member state, was deemed to pose a risk to public policy within the meaning of that provision on the sole ground that he was suspected, or had been criminally convicted, of an act punishable as a criminal offence under national law. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action by dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (dm-drogerie) against a decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie and Disenos Mireia, SL, concerning the application by the latter company for registration of a figurative sign representing a highly stylised capital letter 'M' as a Community trade mark.