Latest Cases

Practice – Judgment. The claimant had defaulted on a loan from a bank and receivers had been appointed in respect of its properties, which were charged to the bank (the properties). The claimant, with the receivers acting as agents, had entered into a contract for the sale of the properties to the defendant. The completion of the sale did not take place by the specified date and the claimant's solicitors served the defendant with notice to complete, under the sale contract. The defendant failed to complete within the specified time and the claimant rescinded the sale contract and the premises were sold to another party at auction. The claimant sought declarations that, among other things, the contract had been terminated by rescission. The claimant applied for summary judgment. The issue was whether a valid notice to complete had been served in accordance with the sale contract. The Chancery Division, in granting the application, held that the notice had been a valid notice to complete and that the claimant had been entitled to and had rescinded the sale contract. The proper 'party' to the sale contract who could give a notice to complete was the seller, the claimant, and not the claimant acting through the receivers. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. Following the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), that the defendant Secretary of State had breached her duty under s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, in not considering the best interests of the first claimant child as a primary consideration (see [2015] All ER (D) 243 (Apr)), the claimants applied for their return to the United Kingdom. The tribunal, in allowing the application, held that, considering the very unusual circumstances in the round, the Secretary of State should be ordered to take all reasonable steps to ensure the return of the claimants to the UK. 

National Health Service – Health authority. The claimant appealed against the judge's decision, refusing her application for judicial review of the defendant clinical commissioning group's refusal to pay for a private flat in which she would receive NHS continuing healthcare. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-Funded Nursing Care 2012 did not, in circumstances where a patient was receiving NHS continuing healthcare in his own home, generally contemplate that the NHS would be responsible for defraying the costs of that accommodation. Accordingly, the judge had correctly concluded that the framework had not dictated the outcome sought by the claimant. 

Competition – Rules on competition. The Competition Appeal Tribunal dismissed the challenge by the Federation of Independent Practitioner Organisations under s 179 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to parts of a report into the provision of private healthcare produced by the Competition and Markets Authority . 

Immigration – Deportation. The respondent Secretary of State made a deportation order against the appellant Jamaican national, who was a foreign criminal as defined by s 32(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007. The appellant contended that the decision to make a deportation order had been taken after the order had been signed, such that the relevant 'immigration decision' was unlawful. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal. It held, inter alia, that the appellant's argument wrongly confused the decision notice with the actual decision to make the order, which had been taken when an official signed it. The relevant 'immigration decision' was contained in the order itself. Further, where reasons had to be given for a decision, they could be explained after the decision was taken and it was acceptable for that to be done by someone who had knowledge of the reasons, even if not himself the decision-maker. 

Redundancy – Employer's duty to consult appropriate trade union. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the term 'establishment' in art 1(1)(a)(ii) of Council Directive (EC) 98/59 (on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to collective redundancies) should be interpreted in the same way as the term in art (1)(a)(i) of that directive. Further, art 1(1)(a)(ii) of the Directive should be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that laid down an obligation to inform and consult workers in the event of the dismissal, within a period of 90 days, of at least 20 workers from a particular establishment of an undertaking, and not where the aggregate number of dismissals across all of the establishments or across some of the establishments of an undertaking over the same period reached or exceeded the threshold of 20 workers. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The appellant was a taxi driver who had his vehicle seized by the respondent local authority for non-payment of council tax. The vehicle was returned in due course as it was a 'tool-of-the-trade' for the appellant. The appellant brought a claim for damages for loss of profit due to its retention. The authority brought a counterclaim for storage charges in respect of the vehicle. At trial the judge found that the appellant had failed to comply with the time limit for service of a witness statement and refused relief from sanctions. He also struck out the appellant's case on the pleadings and gave judgment for the local authority on the counterclaim. The appellant appealed. The Queen's Bench Division held that the judge had been correct to refuse relief from sanctions however judgment for the local authority on the counterclaim with regard to the storage of vehicle charges would be overturned. 

Damages – Assessment. The claimant had her claim for clinical negligence compromised at 75% of the full value and was awaiting trial for an assessment of damages. There was an application before the court for an interim payment in the sum of £550,000. The Queen's Bench Division decided to award an interim payment of £383,858 as being reasonable proportion of the likely amount of the final judgment. 

County court – Appeal. The claimant's application for permission to appeal against a decision of a district judge was dismissed as the circuit judge decided that the claimant's failure to comply with his earlier directions was not trivial and no reasonable excuse for it had been put forward. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. It held, inter alia, that the circuit judge had not purported to deal with the application on the merits; he had simply disposed of it peremptorily by way of a sanction. Further, whatever might be said about the merits of the judge's decision, it was not one that engaged the court's residual jurisdiction. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant mother brought proceedings against the defendant NHS Trust in respect of her child B who was born with chromosomal abnormalities. It was the claimant's contention that the defendant had been in breach of duties to use reasonable care and skill in the management of her pregnancy and had failed to advise her that her baby might be suffering from a chromosomal abnormality. The Queen's Bench Division made an anonymity order in respect of the claimant and B and held that the evidence showed, inter alia, that there was no material risk to which she should have been alerted that B was suffering from a chromosomal abnormality.