Latest Cases

Housing – Homeless person. The claimant sought relief against two local housing authorities, alleging breach of their statutory duties to assess his children as being in need and to provide accommodation. The Administrative Court, declared that the first authority's failure to assess the needs of the claimant's children had been unlawful. Further, it declared that the second authority had breached its statutory duty by failing to give notice to the first authority that the family had been placed in its area, by having failed to make a lawful referral and by failing to secure that accommodation had been available of the claimant and his family in the interim. 

Practice – Civil Procedure Rules. The Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice handed down new Practice Directions and amendments to the existing Practice Directions supplementing the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. 

Judgment – Default judgment. The claimant brought a claim against a limited liability company, a charity, for the repayment of a loan to it. He obtained judgment in default and a final third party debt order. The applicants, who claimed to be the duly elected committee of the charity, but were not directors of it, successfully applied to set aside the judgment in default and third party debt order. The Chancery Division, allowing the claimant's appeal, held that the applicants had not had standing under CPR 40.9 to bring their application to set aside the default judgment obtained by the claimant. Accordingly, the order setting aside the default judgment was set aside and the final third party debt order was restored. 

Road traffic – Accident. The English claimant was involved in an accident in Greece by a car driven by an uninsured Greek driver. Liability was admitted by the defendant Motor Insurance Bureau. The claimant sought to have damages assessed under the laws of England and Wales. The Queen's Bench Division applied established Court of Appeal law and agreed with the claimant. 

Value added tax – Supply of goods or services. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax), deciding, amongst other things, that arts 14(1), 15(1) and 24(1) of that directive should be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the letting of immovable property, the provision of electricity, heating and water and refuse collection, provided by third-party suppliers for the tenant directly using those goods and services had to be regarded as being supplied by the landlord where he had concluded agreements for the provision of those supplies and simply passed on the costs thereof to the tenant. 

Guarantee – Enforcement. The claimant company, SBV, contracted for the construction of two ships. The ships were not built on time and it obtained awards against the shipbuilders. Via two guarantees, SBV sought repayment from the defendant Chinese bank, which had helped to finance the venture. The question was whether judgments obtained in China against SBV would prevent the bank from being liable. The Commercial Court held that the Chinese judgments did not prevent the bank from being liable and that the bank's application for a stay would be dismissed. 

Jury – Verdict. The defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault. The jury failed to reach agreement in relation to five counts of assault by penetration and three counts of sexual assault. The defendant appealed against conviction on the sole ground that the convictions recorded on two counts in relation to a complainant, C, were inconsistent with the jury's failure to agree in relation to the remaining eight counts and, in particular, the other four concerning C. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the appeal. It held, inter alia, that the jury had been entitled to consider the evidence of C, the expert evidence, the contrast with what the character witnesses said happened to them, the defendant's interviews and the circumstances, and reach their conclusions based upon all of it. It was not sufficient simply to look at the evidence of C to justify the allegation of inconsistency. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling deciding that art 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU should be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which an administrative decision declaring that a particular project did not require an environmental impact assessment, which was binding on neighbours who were precluded from bringing an action against that administrative decision, where those neighbours, who were part of the 'public concerned' within the meaning of art 1(2) of that directive, satisfied the criteria laid down by national law concerning 'sufficient interest' or 'impairment of a right'. 

European Union – Immigration. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding, amongst other things that, art 1(3) of Regulation (EC) 2252/2004 (on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States) should be interpreted as meaning that that regulation was not applicable to identity cards issued by a member states to its nationals, such as Netherlands identity cards, regardless of the period of validity and the possibility of using them for the purposes of travel outside that state. 

Commons – Registration. The claimants sought judicial review of the decision of the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State to make an order to exclude land from the register of common land and to register replacement land. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had correctly understood the effect of the obligation under s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Further, it rejected the claimants' challenges based on his reasons and irrationality.