Latest Cases

Housing – Homeless person. The claimant challenged the defendant local housing authority's housing allocation scheme on the basis that it unlawfully suspended an applicant's ability to bid for social housing until 12 months had elapsed following acceptance as an unintentionally homeless eligible person in priority need. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the differentiation permitted by the Housing Act 1996 was restricted to adjusting the relative priority of sub-groups by reference to features which afforded them some opportunity to be allocated social housing, however remote that possibility might be. The authority's scheme afforded the claimant no preference. 

Will – Testator. The Chancery Division held that, in a dispute concerning the validity of the testatrix's second will, the second will had been made validly, and that the testatrix had both had capacity and had known and approved the contents of the will when she had signed it. The claimant's claim for the court to decree probate over the will was allowed, and the first defendant's caveat on the will was vacated. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The proceedings concerned an application by a wife for a mandatory interlocutory injunction to require a husband to pay £8.49m plus interest and fees required to complete the purchase of a property. The husband resisted the application on the basis that the wife's application was an attempt by her to enforce one element of a financial remedy agreement made in the course of financial remedy proceedings. The Family Division held that the element was a separate and distinct element and was therefore enforceable. 

Vicarious liability – Non-employment relationship. In a historic sexual abuse claim by the claimant against various aspects and persons of the Jehovah's Witness organisation, the Queen's Bench Division held that the organisation of Jehovah's Witness was vicariously liable for the acts of various members and that s 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 would be used to allow the claimant to bring her claim. 

European Union – Directive. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Estonia for annulment of certain provisions of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings). The Court decided that the European Parliament and the Council had not infringed, respectively: (i) the principle of proportionality; (ii) the principle of subsidiarity; and (iii) the obligation to state reasons. 

Criminal evidence – Rape – Sufficiency of evidence – Mutual corroboration. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal against conviction on two charges of rape, the court held that what was libelled in charge 5 of the indictment (a charge of assault), being neither an allegation of rape nor an allegation of conduct having any similarity to rape, was not available to corroborate what was libelled in the two charges of rape, and the appellant's conviction on those charges must be quashed. 

European Union – EU Institutions. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the relevant provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank should be interpreted as permitting the European System of Central Banks to adopt a programme for the purchase of government bonds on secondary markets, such as the programme announced in the press release to which reference was made in the minutes of the 340th meeting of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) on 5 and 6 September 2012. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellants had all claimed asylum in the United Kingdom from Afghanistan as minors. Their claims had been refused and they had been granted discretionary leave to remain, in the case of the appellant in the first appeal, for periods of under one year, which, they contended, excluded them from appealing against the rejection of their asylum claims because s 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provided that an appeal against the rejection of an asylum application could only be made where the person had been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK for a period exceeding one year. Appeals to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, on the ground that ss 82 and 83 of the 2002 Act were incompatible with their rights to an effective remedy under art 39 of Directive (EC) 2005/85 (on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting an withdrawing refugee status) were dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal decisions, holding that the scheme under s 83 of the 2002 Act satisfied the requirement of providing an effective remedy for an applicant who was refused asylum, but given leave to remain for a matter of months, and was accordingly, not incompatible with art 39 of Directive (EC) 2005/85. 

Customs and excise – Forfeiture. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeal by Ms Projosujadi against a decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to reject her appeal against the decision by a reviewing officer of the respondent Border Revenue not to restore to her an alligator-skin handbag bought for her in the United States by a friend which had been confiscated by the Border Force because it did not have the relevant certificates. The tribunal decided that in arriving at its decision the FTT had failed to deal with the issue of proportionality, thereby erring in law. The matter was remitted for further review by a different officer. 

Firearms – Possession of firearm without a certificate. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against his conviction for possessing a firearm without a firearm certificate contrary to s 1(10(a) of the Firearms Act 1968, in circumstances where the defendant had been in possession of two flash eliminators but not in possession of any prohibited weapon or firearm. The court held that, on the evidence, the proviso at the end of s 57 of the Act, which envisaged an item being an accessory to something which was not a controlled firearm, had not arisen.