Latest Cases

Sentence – Imprisonment. The claimant prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing his transfer to open conditions in accordance with his absconder policy, which required exceptional circumstances for transfer if a prisoner had failed to return from release on temporary licence. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that the absconder policy was inconsistent and irrational in the light of the Secretary of State's directions to the Parole Board, which required phased release via open conditions to test whether a prisoner could be safely released into the community. 

Criminal law – Trial. The claimant Somali national issued proceedings for judicial review, which proceeded as a challenge to the defendant Crown Court's decision, refusing to extend time to appeal against his conviction, on his guilty plea, for not having an immigration document at interview. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the judge had been entitled to conclude that the application for permission had been too late because it would be impracticable to investigate the position regarding the legal advice given to the claimant properly. Further, there was no prima facie case for asserting that the appellant's guilty plea had been equivocal. 

Criminal Law – Procedure. The Lord Chief Justice handed down a Practice Direction, on 26 March 2015, applying to all proceedings for committal for contempt of court in all courts in England and Wales. The Practice Direction supersedes Practice Guidance: Committal for Contempt ([2013] 1 WLR 1316), dated 3 May 2013; Practice Guidance (Committal Proceedings: Open Court) (No. 2) ([2013] 1 WLR 1753), dated 4 June 2013; and President's Circular: Committals Family Court Practice 2024 at 2976, dated 2 August 2013. 

Misrepresentation – Fraudulent misrepresentation. The respondent insurer claimed damages for deceit against the appellant, in respect of an earlier personal injury claim which was subsequently settled. It pleaded that the statements as to the extent of the appellant's injuries and his accounts given to the medical experts constituted fraudulent misrepresentations. The judge set aside the settlement agreement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held, inter alia, that the judge had been wrong to have held that the respondent could succeed on the basis that, although it had not believed the misrepresentations, its decision as to how much to pay the appellant by way of settlement had been 'influenced' by the fear that the court might do so. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. L was 93 and had severe dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Care and safety arrangements had been made for her by her daughters. The Court of Protection considered whether, among other things, the care arrangements for L amounted to a deprivation of her liberty. The court held that, on the evidence, there had been no deprivation of L's liberty. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The appellants appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) against the refusal by the employment tribunal to include them within the terms of a permanent Restricted Reporting Order (RRO) made in relation to and following the tribunal's determination of claims made by the first respondent. The EAT decided that the tribunal had misdirected itself in law, taken into account irrelevant factors and had omitted relevant factors in refusing the appellants' applications for an extended RRO. Consequently, in exercise of powers under s 35(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, an extended RRO would be made in the terms of the third confidential Annex to the skeleton argument on behalf of the appellants for the appeal before the EAT. 

Banking – Guarantee. The issue on an appeal from Mauritius was whether it was open to the claimant company to bring a claim in tort against the defendant bank on the basis that awareness on the bank's part of the state of account between the parties to an underlying sale and purchase contract, precluded the bank from claiming an indemnity in respect of advances concerning the price of goods, for which it had not been repaid. The Privy Council, dismissing the company's appeal, held that it was not. Where parties had entered into carefully structured contractual arrangements, involving two separate and autonomous contracts, it was impossible for the law to recognise tortious duties outside and cutting across the terms and performance of those contracts. 

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that with regard to procurement contracts for the provision of services of an intellectual nature, training and consultancy, art 53(1)(a) of Directive (EC) 2004/18 did not preclude the contracting authority from using a criterion enabling evaluation of the teams specifically put forward by the tenderers for the performance of the contract and which took into consideration the composition of the team and the experience and academic and professional background of the team members. 

Medical practitioner – Professional Conduct Committee. The claimant psychologists were the subjects of allegations which had been referred to the defendant Health and Care Professions Council's Conduct and Competence Committee (the CCC). The Council made further allegations against them, which were also referred. The claimants sought judicial review on the basis that there was no power to refer the further allegations. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the applications, held that art 22(6) of the Health and Social Work Profession Order 2001, SI 2002/254, fell to be interpreted in such a way as to permit the Council to refer further allegations to its Investigative Committee as a composite entity, in which circumstances, art 26(2) and (5) could be deployed to make a further reference to the CCC. 

Libel and slander – Qualified privilege. In the course of a dispute concerning the rental of a property, the defendants wrote a letter that the claimants alleged was libellous. The defendants applied to strike out the claim. The master dismissed the application, and the defendants appealed. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the defence of qualified privilege succeeded.