Latest Cases

Criminal law – Obstructing constable in execution of duty. The appellant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction for wilfully obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty, alleging that he was immunised by an alleged assault by the police officer. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that, even if the appellant had been the victim of an assault, it provided him with no defence. However, the push given by the officer to the appellant had been lawful, as the reasonable use of force had been authorised by s 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. 

Criminal law – Obstructing course of justice. The offenders were convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice in circumstances where the victim, who had learning difficulties, had been persuaded to spent a twenty four hour period with two of the offenders on the day he had been due to attend court to give evidence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the sentences of between 12 and 16 months' imprisonment had not been unduly lenient. 

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. 

Practice – Striking out. The present proceedings arose from a dispute over a joint venture agreement originally made in 1981. Following attempts at arbitration and a decision by the Supreme Court, the claimant, H, brought a fresh claim. The Commercial Court allowed an application by the defendant, J, to strike out the claim, on the grounds that, in bringing the present proceedings, H had vexed J with litigation twice in circumstances that amounted to harassment of J. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Company – Liquidation. A company in voluntary creditors liquidation was engaged in a construction dispute with a school. The school put in a proof of debt, which the company's liquidators had yet to approve. The school contended that an arbitration clause in the construction contract was binding and continued to apply despite the company being in liquidation. The liquidators of the company applied for directions, contending that the court had power, under r 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925, in connection with the proof of debt process, to give directions as to the taking of an account of the balance due between the company and the school. The Chancery Division ruled, among other things, that the arbitration clause trumped the taking of an account under the court's directions as envisaged by the Insolvency Rules. The arbitration agreement had not become inoperative following liquidation of the company. 

Local authority – Social services. The claimant, who suffered from severe epilepsy, and had a number of mental health and behavioural difficulties, sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision not to continue to fund his present specialist placement and its assessment of his needs. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority's assessment demonstrated a failure to understand and address the claimant's medical and support needs. Further, its decision had amounted to an unlawful interference with the claimant's rights to respect for home and private life. 

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.