Latest Cases

Local authority – Residential care home. The claimants sought judicial review of the care home payment rates set by the defendant local authority on the basis that the authority's decision was flawed because of its treatment of the return on capital element of their actual costs of running their care homes. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, rejected the claimants' contentions including that, because the model on which the decision was based contained a flawed approach to return on capital, as a component of the actual cost of residential care accommodation, the decision had been irrational, had failed to take into account relevant considerations and/or had taken into account irrelevant. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 11A(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 should be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the taxable amount for the calculation of VAT on an application, within the meaning of art 5(7)(b) thereof, of a building that the taxable person had constructed was to be the purchase price, at the time the application was made, of buildings whose location, size and other essential characteristics were similar to those of the building in question. In that regard, it was irrelevant whether part of the purchase price was represented by interim interest. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The shareholders of three companies (the companies) brought three unfair prejudice petitions against the respondents, under s 994 of the Companies Act 2006. The petitioners applied for final relief on their petitions on the basis that the respondents had failed to comply with an order requiring them to answer the request for information. The respondents applied for relief against sanctions under CPR Part 3.9. The Companies Court held that, subject to considering the relief from sanctions application and consequent on the failure to comply with an order of the court, the amended points of defence stood struck out. There had been no, or no sufficient, explanation of the reasons for the delay and considerations, which bore on the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and the importance of compliance with court orders, pointed in only one direction: refusal of the application for relief in relation to the present matter. 

European Union – Regulations. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal bought by Mr Anbouba by which he had requested that the court set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in which the General Court had dismissed his action for annulment of various decisions and regulations made by the European Council concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as his name appeared on the lists of the persons to whom the restrictive measures decided upon under those acts applied. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The son of the patient was made her deputy. The Office of Public Guardian applied under s 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for an order revoking the appointment of CC as the patient's deputy. CC opposed the application. The Court of Protection dismissed the application and found that was impressed with the explanations of CC regarding payment and expenditure. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant underwent a procedure at a hospital for which the defendant NHS Trust had responsibility for. He was not warned of the possibility of post-operative deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. He presented at the hospital feeling unwell, but failed to mention calf pain as a symptom. He later suffered bilateral pulmonary emboli originating from the main right and left pulmonary arteries. He brought a claim for personal injuries and damages on the basis that he ought to have been warned of the risk of pulmonary embolism. The defendant contended that the claimant had himself been contributory negligent. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant had been in breach of duty and that that had caused the claimant's injury. It followed that there had to be judgment for the claimant for the total agreed sum. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a total sentence of two years and two hundred days' imprisonment, in respect of two counts of theft and four counts of domestic house burglary had been unduly lenient, in circumstances where the offender had a 'truly terrible' criminal record. The sentence was substituted for one of four-a-half years' imprisonment. 

Company – Insurance company. In September 2007, the Financial Services Commission (FSC) suspended the registration of the appellant company, Rainbow, as an insurer for general insurance and life insurance business, and appointed an administrator over its business. Rainbow appealed to the Privy Council. The Privy Council held that the FSC had not acted unfairly towards Rainbow in the relevant period, and hence its appeal was dismissed. 

Contract – Penalty. The defendant had been charged for overstaying the maximum free period of parking at a car park operated by the claimant operator. The county court judge had allowed the operator to recover the charge. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal. It held that nothing in the circumstances of the contract between the parties required or allowed the application of the rules about contractual penalties to invalidate the provision under which the judge below had held the defendant liable. Further, there had been no want of good faith or significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties so to have breached the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, SI 1999/2083. 

Newspaper – Publishing. The appellant was the editor of a regional paper which published a report in breach of a reporting restriction order imposed under s 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The judge rejected the appellant's submission that he had no case to answer, after which he pleaded guilty and was fined. The appellant appealed by way of case stated. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the editor of a newspaper did not, as a matter of law, fall outside the scope of the expression 'any person who publishes' in s 39(2) of the Act.