Latest Cases

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. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The offender, then aged 17, was convicted of murder and ordered to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, with a minimum term of 11 years less 266 days spent on remand. The present proceedings concerned the review of the minimum term. The Administrative Court held that the offender had made real progress in prison. However, he had not surmounted the high threshold of exceptional progress. Accordingly, it could not be concluded that any reduction of tariff was justified. 

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. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The appellant Bangladeshi national appealed against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), refusing permission to seek judicial review of the decision of the respondent Secretary of State, refusing him leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that, in the circumstances, even if the Secretary of State had made an error of law, it had not been a material one, because, on the basis of the best possible way in which the appellant's case could have been considered, it had been bound to fail. 

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. 

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. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. There was before the court care proceedings in respect of two children. Both the mother and the father came from an African country, though the mother was born and brought up in a Scandinavian country. The local authority's case sought a care order. The local authority's case was that they should be placed with the father subject to a supervision order. The Family Court found that on the facts, it would be in the best interests of the children that they would be cared for by their father. 

Damages – Personal injury. The deceased died of a subarachnoid haemorrhage as a result of admitted negligence on the part of the defendant Trust. The defendant settled claims brought by her dependants and by her husband for nervous shock The claimant was the deceased's sister. She brought a claim as a secondary victim on the basis that she experienced nervous shock as a result of the events that transpired. The Queen's Bench Division found that in the circumstances, the sight of the deceased could not be regarded as a 'horrifying event'; nor was it sudden or unexpected. There was a series of different events that gave rise to an accumulation during that period of gradual assaults on the claimant's mind and resulted in her psychiatric illness. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant through her mother who was also her litigation friend sought to bring a negligence action against the defendant in respect of the actions of the hospital in which the claimant had been born. Various breaches of duty were admitted on behalf of the defendant, but causation was denied. The claimant applied to adjourn the trial of the due to the unavailability of a witness, a doctor. The Queen's Bench Division agreed to the adjournment despite not being entirely in agreement with the reasons given by the doctor for not being able to attend as a witness.