Latest Cases

Intestacy – Distribution of intestate's estate. A dispute arose between two brothers as to whether a property purchased by their father, but registered in the name of the defendant, was held on trust for the father's estate entirely. The Chancery Division held that the property had been held on trust for the father's estate entirely, and that, on the evidence, the claimant was not guilty of laches. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Jamaican national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing him leave to remain with his partner. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was no error of law in the Secretary of State's decision, refusing him leave to remain. However, even if there had been, relief would be declined in the light of the Secretary of State's subsequent letter, setting out her reasons for continuing to refuse the claimant leave to remain after further consideration of his case. 

Elections – Local government. The applicant sought to challenge the election of a candidate in local government elections. His petition was struck out on the basis of failure to comply with a technical rule in s 136 of the Representation of People Act 1983 that At the time of presenting an election petition or within three days afterwards the petitioner shall give security for all costs which may become payable by him to any witness summoned on his behalf or to any respondent. The applicant appealed the striking out of the petition. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the appeal on the basis that the requirement in the 1983 Act was clear and it had not been complied with. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Commercial Court considered two applications for committal regarding contempts of court allegedly made by G and J in the course of proceedings. The court held that G, who had made admissions, would be sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, which would be suspended, provided that he repaid certain monies. It held that the contempts alleged on the part of J were proved, and that a sentence of 20 months imprisonment would be made in her case. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for a mixed use development. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been a material misdirection within the officer's report as to the five-year housing plan, as applying what had been seen as the realistic housing figure did not produce a five-year supply conclusion proximate to that contained within the officer's report. However, the discretion to refuse to quash the planning permission would be exercised, as the authority would have reached the same decision absent the error. 

Environment – Site of special scientific interest. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Welsh Ministers' decision to adopt a plan for a new stretch of the M4 motorway across an area comprising several sites of special scientific interest and a special area of conservation. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Welsh Government had not failed to consider reasonable alternatives. Further, it had not failed to take reasonable steps to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora and fauna. 

Criminal evidence – Cross-examination. The appellant appealed, by way of case stated, against his conviction for assault. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, gave guidance on the role of a solicitor appointed to cross-examine a witness, under s 38(3) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. It further held that the justices had correctly refused the solicitor's application to adduce bad character evidence concerning the victim and intervened in the cross-examination designed to elicit evidence relating to his failed bad character application. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant premiership footballer obtained an ex parte interim order restraining the defendant from disclosing information regarding an alleged sex act that took place between the two. On the return date of the order, the defendant sought to argue that the order should discharged for material non-disclosure. The Queen's Bench Division held that there had been material non-disclosure and that therefore the discharge of the past orders and the refusal of orders for the future was a just and proportionate response to the non-disclosure. 

Dentist – Professional misconduct. The appellant oral surgeon appealed against the Professional Conduct Committee (the Committee) of the respondent General Dental Council's finding of dishonesty and its decision to erase him from the register. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the Committee had been wrong to conclude that the appellant had perjured himself at a coroner's inquest and quashed aspects of its findings. The sanction of erasure would be quashed and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel to consider afresh the question of sanction in the light of the findings of the Committee which remained. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The appellant father appealed against an order permitting the respondent mother of their five-year-old daughter to remove her permanently from England to live in Sweden. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that it had not been demonstrated that the judge had been wrong in the approach that he had taken to the material before him or the in the decisions that he had made.