Latest Cases

Human Rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The present judicial review proceedings concerned the lawfulness of the disclosure, by the police to a local authority designated officer, of non-conviction material relating to alleged sexual misconduct by the claimant teacher and the subsequent dismissal of his complaint concerning the disclosure. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the decision to disclose had been unlawful, as it had failed to have sufficient regard to the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, the failure to conduct an appropriate and sufficient investigation was so procedurally unfair as to render the resulting decision unlawful. 

Employment – Dismissal. The employee was employed as a nurse, and was absent from work over an extended period, due to stress. Her employment was terminated, and she brought a claim before the employment tribunal (the tribunal). The tribunal dismissed the employee's claims for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. The employee appealed, contending that, among other things, the tribunal had failed to consider the likelihood of her condition reoccurring. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that that matter should have been raised before the tribunal, once the omission had initially been realised, and that an appeal was unnecessary. The matter was referred back to the tribunal. The EAT gave guidance on the correct procedure in such circumstances and on its own jurisdiction to entertain appeals from 'decisions' of employment tribunals. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In claims by many hundreds of Iraqi civilians against the defendant Ministry of Defence for damages for their allegedly unlawful detention and ill-treatment by British armed forces, the preliminary issue was whether in respect of the claims in tort the law of Iraq provided for joint liability and/or vicarious liability of the defendant for acts alleged to have been done by members of the US forces. The Queen's Bench Division gave a ruling based on the evidence submitted. 

Warrant – Search warrant. The first defendant granted the second defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner four warrants, under s 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, concerning the claimants' office and homes. The claimants sought judicial review. The Divisional Court held that it had not been feasible to provide greater specificity and it had been unrealistic to expect the officers to have taken away any relevant material for a computer or other storage device in paper form or on memory sticks. Further, it was permissible to order the seizure of electronic storage devices or their contents in the circumstances without resort to other statutory provisions. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. XZ completed a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for property and financial affairs. The Office of Public Guardian (OPG) refused to register the LPA. XZ came before the Court of Protection seeking to require the PG to register the document. The Court of Protection allowed the application on the basis that pursuant to s 23(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. XZ's LPA did not contain any provisions which would be ineffective or would prevent the instrument from operating as a valid power of attorney. 

Criminal law – Trial of children and young persons. The second defendant, B, aged 16, was charged with child sexual offences. The claimant Director of Public Prosecution sought judicial review of the first defendant youth court's decision to retain jurisdiction on the basis there was power to commit B for sentence, including under s 3B(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that the youth court had failed to appreciate that the amendment to s 3B of the 2000 Act had not been in force at the time it had made its decision. Further guidance was given on the resulting statutory structure. 

Malicious prosecution – Action. The Chancery Division held that the decision in Gregory v Portsmouth City Council ([2000] 1 All ER 560), that in English law the tort of malicious prosecution was not available beyond the limits of criminal proceedings and special instances of abuse of civil legal process, was binding on it and the facts of the case did not fall within one of the special instances of abuse of civil proceedings. Accordingly, the claimant's claim for malicious prosecution was struck out. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant company provided professional engineering services to the defendant, in respect of the development of a site. The claimant brought a claim for unpaid fees in respect of those services. The defendant counterclaimed, alleging professional negligence. The claimant applied for summary judgment on its claim and to strike out the counterclaim on the basis that it was unparticularised and had no real prospect of success. If further contended that the counterclaim should be struck out where the defendant had failed to comply with an unless order at a pre-trial review to provide a pre-trial review questionnaire. The Technology and Construction Court granted summary judgment on the claimant's claim and struck out the counterclaim. The pre-trial review questionnaire filed by the defendant had not, in substance, complied with the unless order and amounted to substantive non-compliance. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellant Iranian national made an unsuccessful claim for asylum. The First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) dismissed his appeal. The appellant contended, inter alia, that the FTT had erred in failing to take into account, in the proportionality assessment under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the respondent Secretary of State's policy on removals to Iran. Further, if he was not granted discretionary leave to remain, he would be left in limbo. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that, having considered the policy, even if the appellant's argument had been advanced before the FTT, there would have been no proper basis for a finding that the refusal of leave would have put him into a state of limbo. Consideration of whether he would have been in a state of limbo would have drawn the FTT into impermissible speculation about the future. 

Practice – Amendment. The claimant was the owner of a development in Birmingham. It brought claims against the defendant contractor in respect of alleged defects in the development. The claimant applied to amend its particulars of claim. The Technology and Construction Court, in dismissing the application, considered the correct approach to amendments to particulars of claim.