Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Negligence – Clinical negligence. The claimant, through her mother, brought a case in clinical negligence against the defendants in respect of allegedly negligent examinations of the claimant prior to her developing pneumococcal meningitis combined with other features, which led to sustained irreversible brain damage. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claim against both defendants on the evidence. 

Divorce – Foreign Divorce. The wife applied to the court seeking that the decrees nisi and absolute of divorce issued by the High Court of Malaya at Shah in favour of the respondent husband be refused recognition in England and Wales. The Family Division held that having regard to s 51(3)(a) of the Family Law Act 1986, the court in its discretion would refuse recognition of the Malaysian decree nisi and the wife would also be allowed to proceed with the decree nisi in the United Kingdom Court. 

Prisoner – Human rights. Sheriff Court: In an action for damages under s 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court upheld the pursuer's preliminary plea and granted declarator that the defenders' use of restraint while taking him from prison to attend three hospital appointments in 2013 was incompatible with his rights, under arts 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment and to respect for his private life. 

Personal injury – Liability – Breach of statutory duty – Negligence. Sheriff Court: In an action for damages by a prison officer who suffered a neck injury when taking part in a training exercise involving a simulated prison riot, the court concluded that the pursuer had proved on the balance of probabilities that she was injured in the way that she claimed, however she had failed to establish a breach of any of the various health and safety regulations founded upon, and her common law case of negligence also failed. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Afghani national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing to treat his further representations as fresh asylum and human rights claim. He relied on the statement of the director of a charity for which he had worked, concerning an incident between him and Taliban members, resulting in death threats. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that no reasonable decision-maker, certainly having approached the task with the anxious scrutiny required, could have rationally rejected the director's statement as so implausible that there had been no possibility of an immigration judge attaching weight to it. 

Housing – Homeless person. The appellant had applied to the respondent local authority for homeless assistance under the Housing Act 1996. The authority accepted that he met all of the criteria other than a connection with the local area, as he had more of a connection with Eastbourne and referred the application accordingly. Eastbourne accepted that it had a housing duty towards him, but the appellant never applied to that authority for assistance. The respondent authority rejected the appellant's applications as the appellant was not homeless as accommodation was available to him in Eastbourne if he applied for it. The appellant's appeals were refused. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the fact that an applicant might be offered accommodation by another authority which might satisfy s 175(3) of the Act did not entitle the decision maker, per se, to find that an applicant was not homeless and that, accordingly, the qualifications for homelessness contained in s 175(1) were not satisfied. The court found that the judge below had erred but, remaking the decision for itself, held that the appellant had been homeless but that, in the circumstances, the authority had no longer owed any housing duty to him.