Latest Cases

Local government – Council tax. The appellant listing officer appealed against the Valuation Tribunal for England's determinations of the appropriate valuation band, for the purposes of council tax, for the respondents' flats. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeals, held that reg 6 of the Council Tax (Situation and Valuation of Dwellings) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/550 provided that a flat was assumed to be let on a conventional long lease at nominal rent and not on a shared ownership lease. Accordingly, the tribunal had erred in assessing the value of the flats on the basis that they would be subject to shared ownership leases. 

Housing – Local authority. The claimant, as administratrix of the estate of her son, L, brought proceedings against the defendant local housing authority. She contended that, had the authority properly applied its housing policy and offered L accommodation before he contracted an infection, he would not have contracted the infection and would not have died. The authority sought summary judgment or, alternatively, to strike out the claim. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant's essential complaint was that the authority had not been exercising its statutory duties and powers properly, which was insufficient to give rise to a duty of care and the provision of the information relating to L's health was insufficient to give rise to the duty of care sought to be relied on. The claim would be struck out and, in the alternative, summary judgment granted. 

Costs – Order for costs. The parties sought costs orders, following the Queen's Bench Division's previous decision finding the defendant liable to the claimant for 100% of her damages, despite being unsuccessful on the second limb of her claim (see [2015] All ER (D) 24 (Feb)). The court held that the existence of a CPR Pt 36 offer did not insulate the claimant from a proportionate costs order. Accordingly, a costs order would be made in the claimant's favour limited to a percentage of her costs appropriate to reflect the percentage of time expended on, and 100% of the disbursements directly incurred in, establishing the first limb, but not the second limb. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant employer for damages for psychiatric illness and consequential loss caused by work-related stress. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the claim had to fail as to the claimant's first breakdown, as the foreseeability threshold could not begin to be surmounted on any view of the evidence. Further, there had been no breach of duty in respect of the claimant's first attempted return to work and, had a general risk assessment been conducted, no general risk of psychiatric injury would have been uncovered. 

Human rights – Right to fair trial. The applicant, with an IQ of 62 and a six-year-old's understanding of spoken English, alleged violations of art 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights in his murder trial. The European Court of Human Rights, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no violation of art 6(1) of the Convention by the judge's ruling that it had been desirable for the applicant to have given evidence or his failure to direct the jury to consider whether the prosecution case was so strong that it had called for an answer before inviting it to draw an adverse inference from the applicant's failure to testify. 

Damages – Personal injury. The defendant admitted liability for negligence for the claimant's significant brain damage and disabilities sustained during his birth, but the parties disputed the damages to be awarded. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was likely to live to be 63 years. It assessed his earnings but for his disability and determined he would have retired at age 70. The court held that the additional cost of demolishing the existing residence and building a new property was to be borne by the defendant. Further consideration was given to the future management by a deputy and multi-disciplinary team meetings. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employee claimed constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, less favourable treatment as a part-time worker and breaches of contract by the employer. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) dismissed all of the claims, save in respect of a breach of contract complaint. The issue on appeal was whether the tribunal's judgment was tainted for bias where the judge was a governor of another school in the same area as the school involved in the proceedings. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the appeal, held that the fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that there was any possibility of bias in the case. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee had claimed unfair and/or wrongful dismissal, arising out of a resignation which had been found to have been made without any notice, and where there had been no repudiatory breach by the employer. Accordingly, the employee was not entitled to any award of compensation for unfair dismissal, nor for wrongful dismissal, and had no legitimate claim for moneys due in the notice period. The employee withdrew her claim for notice pay. The employment tribunal, however, awarded £1,800 at the hearing because the employer had not provided a statement of terms and conditions of employment under s 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and £150 as a fee reimbursement because the employee had partially won her case. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, allowing the employer's appeal, held that the employee had not justified claim; she had lost her case; and there had been no jurisdiction to make an award in respect of the admitted failure of the employer to observe s 1 of the Act. 

Income tax – Discounts. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) affirmed in part a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) which had upheld the decision by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to amend the taxpayers' self-assessment tax returns on the basis that the profits made by the taxpayers on fixed rate notes stripped of interest coupons amounted to a discount of an income nature. 

Minor – Medical treatment. D, who was 15, had been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Tourette's Syndrome. He was in the care of a hospital run by the second respondent local authority. A dispute arose as to whether, among other things, it had been within the scope of parental responsibility for the parents to have placed D at the hospital. The Family Division held that, on the evidence, it would be wholly disproportionate to rule that it had not been within the zone of parental responsibility to do so.