Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged 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 planning permission. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the inspector had materially erred in failing to grapple with the issue of whether the development had been in accordance with the development plan as a whole. Further, she had erred in taking the problems of implementing an emergency access into account as a factor in the balance against the proposal, as it could have been dealt with by way of conditions. 

Negligence – Duty of care. There was a preliminary issue before the court regarding whether or not the defendant Secretary of State owed a non-delegable duty of care to the claimant so as to render it liable to the claimant in respect of any negligence acts or omissions on the part of those providing medical care at an immigration retention centre. The Queen's Bench Division held that all the elements of non-delegable duty had been made out and further it was fair and reasonable to conclude that the defendant owed the claimant a non-delegable duty. 

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. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection considered whether the respondent, MP, should be allowed to remain as his partner's deputy. The court held that, on the evidence, MP had behaved in a way that had contravened the authority conferred on him. The order revoking his appointment as a deputy would be confirmed, and a panel deputy would be appointed in his place. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision that she had been trafficked, but did not qualify for discretionary leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had erred in considering the claimant's failure to co-operate with police when she had not made a referral to the police for over a year. Further, the Secretary of State had failed to consider a psychiatrist's recommendation. Accordingly, the decision refusing discretionary leave would be quashed and a declaration that the claimant's rights under art 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached would be made. 

Human Rights – Slavery or servitude, prohibition of. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, seeking a declaration and damages for the defendant Secretary of State's alleged breach of art 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights by her failure to report to the police that the claimant had been trafficked. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, by reporting the matter to the police, albeit slightly later than she might have done, the Secretary of State had complied with her positive duty to instigate a prompt and effective police investigation. 

Data protection – Processing of information. Google had sought, to set aside the permission that had been granted to the claimants to serve their claim form out of the jurisdiction in their action which alleged misuse of private information, breach of confidence and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA). The action for breach of confidence was set aside. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed Google's appeal as the pleaded actions were clearly arguable and not pointless. The court held that misuse of private information should be recognised as a tort for the purposes of service out of the jurisdiction and that, in order to make s 13(2) of the DPA compatible with EU law, that section had to be disapplied, with the consequence that compensation would be recoverable under s 13(1) for any damage suffered as a result of a contravention by a data controller of the requirements of the DPA. 

European Union – Insurance. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 2 of the Third Council Directive (EEC) (on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles), as amended, should be interpreted as meaning that a premium which varied according to whether the insured vehicle was to be used only in the territory of the member state in which that vehicle was normally based or in the entire territory of the European Union did not fall within the concept of 'single premium', within the meaning of that article. 

European Union – Copyright. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 3(2) of Directive (EC) 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council should be interpreted as not precluding national legislation extending the exclusive right of the broadcasting organisations referred to in art 3(2)(d) as regards acts of communication to the public which broadcasts of sporting fixtures made live on internet, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, could constitute, provided that such an extension did not undermine the protection of copyright. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The claimant had been the long-term partner of the deceased, who was a member of the armed forces. She appealed in respect of a decision that, as she had been still married to her husband, from whom she had separated, she was not eligible for benefits under the armed forces pension scheme. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the claimant and the deceased had, on the date of his death, been prevented from marrying, within the meaning of the scheme's rules, by virtue of the claimant's subsisting marriage and there had been no unlawful discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights.