Latest Cases

European Union – Air transport. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding , amongst other things, that art 3(g) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators) should be interpreted as meaning that the occupant of a helicopter held by a Community air carrier, who had been carried on the basis of a contract between that air carrier and the occupant's employer in order to perform a specific task was a 'passenger' within the meaning of that provision. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Practice – Companies. The company and the administrators of the scheme (the applicants) sought declarations concerning the proper construction of a scheme of arrangement in respect of the company and its parent. Following the passage of the 'Bar Date', there were two main groups of people who thought might have claims, were those who had lost money investing in shares in the parent company and customers who had been mis-sold payment protection insurance (PPI). The Chancery Division (Companies Court) made various declarations on the basis of whether the respondents were creditors of the scheme. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought an order quashing the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing its appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of outline planning permission for a development including 250 dwellings. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had interpreted the relevant policy correctly and applied it lawfully, and her reasons were unimpeachable. Further, the inspector had not misunderstood the policies or overlooked any policy she ought to have considered under para 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Her conclusions were not in any way confusing, unclear or contradictory. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. JC was killed in a plane crash while on business in Africa. The claimants, who were his relatives, brought proceedings against the company that employed him, GMP, and a company with which GMP had been working, and which had chartered the plane, Sundance. The Queen's Bench Division held that GMP had been in breach of its duty to JC. However, if it had done what it should have done, JC would still have been on the flight that had crashed. Further, there had been no breach of duty on the part of Sundance. The claim was dismissed. 

Social security – Housing benefit. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to include the care component of his disability living allowance (DLAc) in calculating his income for the purposes of assessing a discretionary house payment. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority's policy of always taking into account DLAc as income when assessing awards of discretionary house payment was unlawful, as it failed to consider the Department of Work and Pensions' guidance. Further, it amounted to discrimination, contrary to art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and s 29(6) of the Equality Act 2010. 

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. 

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.