Latest Cases

Education – Local education authority. The defendant local education authority proposed to amend its policy so that pupils attending faith schools would be entitled to free public transport only if the relevant distance criteria were met and no suitable alternative school, including a non-faith school, was located within two or three miles of home. The claimants, who were affiliated with faith schools, sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that black and minority ethnic origin children suffered a particular disadvantage as a consequence of the amended policy, which was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Further, the report relied on in making the decision had misstated the law. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant, through his mother as litigation friend applied for an injunction to restrain the first defendant father and the second defendant publisher from publishing a book about the first defendant's experiences of being sexually abused as a child and his subsequent battles with mental illness. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application on the basis, amongst others, that under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a claim by a child seeking to restrain his father from talking about his (the father's) life largely before the child was born was misconceived. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendants' appeals against confiscation orders made pursuant to s 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, following their conviction of a conspiracy to cheat the public revenue through 'MTIC' fraud. The fraud involved the repayment of VAT on the export of goods. The court rejected the defendants' contention that the loss to the Revenue and Customs Commissioners was the aggregate of the amounts claimed by the exporter, and that that was the benefit for the purposes of ss 10 and 76 of the Act. Further, the court held that the way in which the judge had dealt with benefit had not had a disproportionate effect for the purposes of art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. A child, A, was the product of artificial insemination between R and a donor. H and R were in a civil partnership but later separated. A residence order was made in favour of H. H commenced a relationship and cohabited with M, who was a female to male transsexual. It was contended that M and A had developed a father/daughter bond. After M and H separated. M sought to resume his relationship with A and have contact with her. He applied to the court for leave to apply for a child arrangements order. The Family Court refused to give leave on the basis that although M had spent a significant period of time living with A, other factors, including the potentially damaging effect on A's welfare militated against allowing M to proceed with his substantive application. 

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. 

Company – Administration order. The Companies Court, in dismissing an application by joint administrators, held that, as a result of art 4 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No 5 and Saving Provisions) Order 2013, conditional fee arrangements were unavailable to the administrators who had been appointed under the special administration regime. 

Injunction – Interlocutory. The claimants appealed against an award to the defendants of a sum in excess of £27m on an inquiry as to the damages they had suffered as a result of an interim injunction, restraining the defendants from marketing a drug pending trial. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, considered the general principles to be applied in assessing the damages payable under a cross-undertaking given in respect of the grant of an interim injunction and held that, in all the circumstances, the judge had been entitled to have drawn the overall conclusions he had. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant company permitted the defendants to make use of its name. It terminated that permission, but the defendants continued to use its name. The claimant commenced proceedings, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. It applied for summary judgment of its claim. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, there was no doubt that the defence had no prospect of success on any of the grounds relied upon. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The court previously held that an error of law had arisen because of a failure on the part of the first defendant Secretary of State (see [2015] All ER (D) 33 (May)). The second to fourth defendants contended that a declaration should be made, instead of a quashing order. The Administrative Court held that it was appropriate, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, to grant a declaration as to the unlawfulness that had occurred. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant Middle Eastern banks (the banks) claimed that the first defendant had falsely claimed to have an irrevocable power of attorney from them and had purportedly entered into partnerships, governed by English law, under which the relevant bank was the general partner and he was the limited partner, which he had then registered with the Registrar of Companies (the Registrar). They alleged that he had then used the certificate of registration as an instrument of fraud. The Chancery Division granted the banks summary judgment, holding that the first defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claims. However, the court declined to order the Registrar to delete the registration of the limited partnerships, holding that notwithstanding the circumstances which had led to the registration, once the certificate of registration had been issued, that was conclusive evidence that a limited partnership had come into existence, for the purposes of s 8C(4) of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907. The principle that fraud unravelled all was not a sufficient basis to go behind the conclusive evidence provision in s 8C of the Act.