Latest Cases

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. 

Family provision – Widow. The claimant brought a claim, under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, in respect of the estate of her deceased husband. The defendants sought an order for summary judgment or to strike out the claim. The Family Division held, inter alia, that it would be fundamentally unjust to terminate the application at the present stage before there had been a scrutiny of the underlying documents which would prove conclusively whether the averrals by each of the defendants that there had been no relevant dispositions in their favour were true or false. 

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. 

Immigration – Removal. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions, refusing her leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The issue for determination was whether the Secretary of State was obliged to issue a decision to remove the claimant from the UK. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had considered the claimant's welfare, that she was not in limbo and her circumstances had not warranted making a removal decision. Accordingly, the Secretary of State's decision not to issue removal directions had been within the range of reasonable responses open to her. 

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. 

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. 

Ward of court – Practice. The Family Division considered two cases, both of which were brought ex parte by local authorities who were concerned that a number of young people, all minors in their areas, were at risk of leaving the United Kingdom to travel to ISIS countries, particularly Syria. In both sets of proceedings the young people were made wards of court and orders were made relating to the retrieval of the passport of each of the young people concerned. The court considered the core principles which were applicable to such applications. 

Civil procedure – Contempt. Court of Session: In a petition to the nobile officium, asking the court to quash a sheriff's interlocutor which found that two social workers had failed to obey an earlier interlocutor by not making two children available for contact with their mother from 11 July until 22 August 2013, and that they were guilty of contempt of court, the court held that the sheriff had not made any findings which justified her conclusion that the social workers' conduct was a contemptuous affront to the dignity and authority of the court, and it followed that her interlocutor should be quashed. 

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. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant asylum seeker sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions, repeatedly refusing to treat his further submissions as amounting to a fresh claim and continuing to detain him when she was on notice of medical reports concerning his mental health and torture claim. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had not established that he had a realistic prospect of success before a fresh immigration judge. Further, there was no independent evidence of torture and the reports had not said that the claimant's symptoms could not be managed in detention.