Latest Cases

Employment – Appeal. The employee, an employment tribunal lay member, brought a claim, alleging part-time worker discrimination. The comparator was rejected and the claim was dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the appeal, held that the tribunal had not decided the point based on his own experience, rather than on the evidence. The decision had been plainly correct. 

Immigration – Detention. He claimant issued judicial review proceedings, seeking a declaration that some or all of his immigration detention between 5 December 2009 and 26 March 2014 had been unlawful. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application in part, held that, by 16 September 2013, there had been no realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable time, and the claimant should have been released and detention had become unlawful on that date. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The appellant appealed against an order in which a master dismissed the appellant's application to set aside default judgment. The Queen's Bench Division gave consideration to CPR 13.31 and allowed the appeal on the basis that the appellant had a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. 

Town and country planning – Change of use. The local authority had granted planning permission for the change of use of a second hand car sales site to a car hire business with ancillary office space. The business was on a scrap metal yard. The applicant had been refused permission to apply for judicial review of the authority's decision as the development proposal had not come within the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999, SI 1999/293. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the applicant's appeal as the proposal did not qualify as a change to or an extension of an 'industrial estate development project' as the scrap metal yard could not be so described in accordance with the first column of para 10(a) of the table in Sch 2 to the Regulations. 

Prison – Release on licence. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant Secretary of State, complaining that women had been the subject of unlawful sex discrimination as a result of the arrangements for placing prisoners in approved premises (APs). The basis of the claim was that the configuration of APs meant that it was necessarily and inevitably harder to place women close to their home than men. The judge held, inter alia, that there had been no discrimination, either direct or indirect. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that direct discrimination had not been established and there had been no indirect discrimination. 

Expenses – Protective expenses order. Court of Session: Granting a motion by a community council and its elected members, who had appealed against a local authority's decision to make a traffic management and parking control order, seeking a protective expenses order at common law to limit the community council's potential liability in expenses, the court held that a protective expenses order was justified, as the appeal had real prospects of success and the grounds of appeal raised issues of general public importance and the public interest required that those issues should be resolved, and the community council's liability in expenses to the respondents should be limited to £1,000. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The father appealed against the judge's refusal of his application for an adjournment and for a rehearing of the care proceedings relating to four of his children. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal. It held that, as to the refusal of an adjournment, the judge had conducted the appropriate balancing exercise and reached a conclusion which could not be categorised as wrong. As to the refusal of a rehearing, it could not be seen upon what basis the court could conclude that the earlier findings needed revisiting in order to reach the right decision in the interests of the children. 

Negligence – Joint tortfeasors. The second defendant lifeguard and a swimming teacher were found to have been liable in negligence for injuries suffered when the claimant nearly drowned during the course of a school swimming lesson. The third defendant local authority was found to have breached its duty of care owed to the claimant. The authority sought a complete indemnity of 100% of its liability to the claimant from the second defendant or a contribution of 50%. The Queen's Bench Division held that it was not just and equitable that the second defendant indemnified the authority for the totality of the claimant's damage. However, the second defendant should contribute one third to the authority's liabilities to the claimant, in respect of damage and legal costs. 

Contract – Construction. The present proceedings concerned the property investment arrangements between the claimant and the first defendant. The Chancery Division ruled on preliminary issues concerning, first, when and how the contract between the claimant and first defendant was made and, second, the terms of the contract. 

Highway – Definitive map. The claimant issued proceedings, seeking the quashing of an order made under s 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, modifying the definitive map of public rights of way by adding a new footpath, as confirmed by the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, properly construed, the inspector's decision had been rational and she had given adequate reasons for her conclusions.