Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. L's father brutally murdered his mother in a very premeditated and carefully planned attack. The matter came before the court in order to decide whether L should move to live permanently with his maternal grandparents, who lived in a city in China; or with his father's sister, his paternal aunt, and her husband, who lived in a town in South East England. The Family Court held that it was in L's best interests to live with his aunt and uncle. 

Social Security – Services for sick and disabled person. The claimants sought judicial review of the legality of the Secretary of State's processing of their applications for personal independence payments. The Administrative Court held that the delay in the first claimant's case of some 13 months and the delay in the second claimant's case of some 10 months had not only been unacceptable, but had been unlawful. Accordingly, a declaration of unlawfulness in relation to C and W would be granted. However, their claims alleging breaches of their rights under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention were dismissed. 

Compulsory purchase – Compensation. The Homes and Communities Agency appealed against the valuation of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), awarding the claimant compensation in the sum of £746,000 in respect of the compulsory acquisition of two plots of land comprised within a compulsory purchase order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, set aside the decision of the tribunal and remitted the assessment of compensation back to the tribunal. 

Animal – Protection. The appellant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction for a number of counts of contraventions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the prosecution had not failed to comply with the time limits laid down by s 31(1) of the Act. In particular, a certificate under s 31(2) of the Act could be issued after a challenge had been raised in court proceedings, but the certificate was not essential and it was the individual with responsibility for deciding whether a prosecution should go forward whose thoughts and beliefs were relevant. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The Planning Court held that an appeal against an enforcement notice made under s 174(2)(f) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (ground f), on the basis that any step specified in an enforcement notice exceeded what was necessary to remedy an injury to amenity caused by the relevant breach of planning control, could not be entertained when: (i) there was no appeal under s 174(2)(a) of the Act that planning permission should be granted; and (ii) the planning objections which the step addressed were not limited to any injury to amenity. Therefore, whether an appeal lay on that basis under ground f depended upon the nature of the planning objection that the step sought to remedy. 

Partnership – Partnership property. A dispute had arisen as to whether a partnership agreement had been terminated and whether the first defendant partner had been entitled to sell the lease and business. The court ordered that the first claimant partner be allowed to re-enter the premises and run the business by himself pending resolution of the dispute. The Chancery Division dismissed the first defendant's application to set aside or vary that order. It was not clear that the lease was not partnership property, as alleged by the first defendant. The judge had been correct to find that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the claimant running the business by himself. Finally, the allegation that the claimant was in breach of the partnership agreement would have to be determined in due course and the contention that the terms of the order had been breached was more appropriately dealt with as a matter of enforcement rather than variation. 

Claim form – Service. The claimants brought proceedings alleging that they had been mis-sold certain bonds. The Chancery Division held that the claimants had not validly served the claim form on the first defendant bank (IAPB) in accordance with CPR 6.9(2), in circumstances where IAPB was not carrying out its business in the United Kingdom. The claim against its parent company, the second defendant, was struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) on the ground that the particulars of claim disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Directive (EEC) 92/85 (on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and Directive (EC) 2006/54. The request had been made in proceedings between Ms Rosselle and the Institut national d'assurance maladie-invalidité and another, concerning the refusal to grant her a maternity allowance on the ground that she had not completed the minimum contribution period required under national law. 

Assault – Civil action. The claimant's claim for damages for assault, in which he alleged that unreasonable and excessive force was applied in the course of his arrest, was dismissed and he appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the judge's decision on the basis set out in the respondents' notice. It held that, on the facts, the judge had been plainly wrong to have found, even as a 'borderline case', that it had been more likely than not that the force used had been unreasonable and excessive. In the circumstances of the case, the force used had not been unreasonable, excessive or disproportionate. 

Practice – Strike out. The claimants brought proceedings to set aside a judgment granted in favour of the defendant, alleging that it had been obtained by fraud. The defendant applied to strike out and/or dismiss the claimants' claim. The Chancery Division, in allowing the application, held that on the facts, it could not be concluded that the claimants had an arguable case, nor one with any realistic prospect of success, to set aside the judgment. The claimants' proposed amended case of fundamental deception did not save the proceedings, was not arguable and, in any event, was flawed by the fresh evidence rule, in particular the reasonable diligence requirement.