Latest Cases

Criminal law – Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against conviction in circumstances where the judge had erred in proceedings in the defendant's absence and in telling the jury that the defendant had 'absented himself'. 

Unfair dismissal – Belief discrimination. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) had found that the employee had been fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. However, it had also ruled that he had suffered unlawful direct discrimination and harassment on account of his protected left-wing democratic socialist beliefs. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that, whilst there appeared to be tension between the conclusion that the employee's dismissal was fair and unlawfully discriminatory, provided the tribunal had made findings of fact, correctly applied the relevant statutory test, and reached reasoned conclusions by reference to the facts found that were supported by the evidence, there was no reason in principle why its conclusion could not stand. The findings of unlawful direct discrimination and harassment could not stand where there was no evidential basis to support such findings. Accordingly, the employer's cross-appeal was allowed on those grounds. 

Insolvency – Administration order. The applicant, in his capacity as a creditor of the company for the purposes of para 12(1)(c) of Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, sought an administration order to take effect retrospectively from November 2010. The court was being asked to make a retrospective order which would cure the fact of the void appointments of the purported present liquidators, by casting back over four years and validating the actions of those individuals, not as liquidators, but as administrators, in the intervening period, with a view to the company being moved by those freshly appointed administrators into creditors' voluntary liquidation. The Chancery Division held that, in the circumstances, the only appropriate outcome for the present administration application was to make an order for the compulsory winding-up of the company. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The parties divorced and when it came to assessing financial remedies the wife sought not to enforce a post nuptial agreement. The Family Division applying recent case law held that the agreement was enforceable as it had been entered into freely by the wife, and with full appreciation of its implications. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The claimant was serving a sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum term of six years, for rape. He sought judicial review of the defendant Parole Board's decision not to recommend his transfer to open conditions. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Parole Board had not simply placed a high weight on the fact that the claimant denied sexual intercourse with the complainant, which it would have been entitled to have done, but had used the factor of denial as the sole factor to be put in the balance when assessing the continuing degree of risk. 

Adoption – Order. The applicant was the biological father of a child, aged seven months, who had been born to him through surrogacy arrangements made with the applicant's mother and through a fertility clinic. The Family Court granted the order for adoption where the arrangement had been entirely lawful under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and where the court was satisfied that the child's lifelong welfare needs would be met by the court making the order. 

Minor – Abduction. The father had left the child in Singapore with his parents and the mother had sought the child's return to England. The court had determined that the English courts had jurisdiction based on the child's habitual residence, while the issues of welfare and forum conveniens were to be dealt with at a later date. During wardship proceedings, the judge stated that he had been asked to reconsider habitual residence by incorporating those two outstanding issues. The judge found that the court had previously found that the proper forum was England and made orders against the father. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the father's appeal and held that the judge had not properly engaged in a legally correct, or procedurally correct, way with the issue of forum. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The appellant doctor appealed against the decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel (the Panel) of the defendant General Medical Council, to direct that her name be erased from the medical register by reason of her misconduct. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the decision to impose the sanction of erasure had been well within its margin of judgment. It had not been wrong and it was not an assessment with which the court ought to interfere. 

Local government – Council tax. The appellant appealed against the decision of a panel of the Valuation Tribunal for England (the Panel), finding that she had not produced any substantive evidence to support her contention that her flat had truly been derelict and, therefore, it had remained a hereditament for council tax purposes. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the hearing had not been unfair and the Panel had applied the correct legal test. Further, the Panel's decision had not been wrong, irrational and in breach of the appellant's human rights. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The claimant was an unsuccessful party in a tendering exercise. It brought proceedings against the defendant local authority, and an automatic suspension was imposed. The authority applied to lift the suspension. The Technology and Construction Court held that the advantages to the authority if the suspension was lifted would be very small, but the disadvantages to the claimant would be fundamental. As a result, the suspension would remain in force until the trial.