Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the first defendant Secretary of State's decision to grant planning permission, allowing the demolition of buildings and redevelopment, including eight new buildings with office, retail and residential uses. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector appointed by the Secretary of State had not erred in having regarded the developer's report as sufficient for his decision. Although the inspector had erred in dispensing with statements of case, there had been no prejudice. Further, the inspector's conduct had fallen below that which was to be expected, but that had not demonstrated a real possibility of bias. 

Adoption – Payment for adoption. The applicants had paid a surrogate mother, T, to have a child for them. They submitted that the court should dispense with the need for T to be served with a parental order, as they had taken reasonable steps to try to locate her. The Family Court held that, in the circumstances, the requirement for service on T would be dispensed with, and that certain payments made to T and the surrogacy clinic would be authorised. 

Fatal accident – Damages. The claimant's husband, who had been in England at the relevant time, had been killed when hit by a car driven by the defendant. The family were Italian and lived in Italy, and the husband's employer was an Italian company. The defendant admitted two thirds liability. The claimant sought, by way of 'subrogated claims', to recover from the defendant benefits that she had been paid, or was due to be paid, by the Italian Workers Compensation Authority and her husband's employer and for which she was contractually obliged to seek recovery. The Queen's Bench Division, on the trial of a preliminary issue, held that the subrogated claims were not recoverable by operation of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 864/2007 (on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations) (Rome II) and the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. 

Arbitration – Award. The claimant bought a claim challenging the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal, which had granted an award in favour of the defendant. He was granted a stay on the enforcement of the award until the determination of that claim (the first order). The first order was later varied. The defendant applied to discharge a paragraph in the first order and for leave, under s 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996, to enforce the award. The Commercial Court, in granting the application, ruled that it had been unnecessary and inappropriate for the court to grant the first order in its original form or as subsequently varied. There was nothing in CPR 62.18 which contemplated that temporary prohibition against enforcement of an arbitration award might be made, subject to an order for the provision of security. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The victim, who had a substantial portfolio of assets, was murdered after befriending the first defendant. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing his appeal against conviction for murder, held that nothing had occurred which would lead the court to conclude that the conviction was unsafe. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The defendants pleaded guilty to an indictment charging them with conspiracy to evade the duty payable on the importation of cigarettes, contrary to s 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The judge subsequently made confiscation orders against both men. The defendants appealed against the confiscation orders, contending, among other things, that the judge had been wrong to find that they had incurred a liability to pay excise duty and VAT, and that, on the facts, no benefit had been 'obtained' for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the grounds of appeal and held that it was bound by the decision of the House of Lords in R v Smith (David) ([2002] 1 All ER 366 ). 

Fish – Salmon and trout. The claimant leasehold owner of a right to fish for salmon at Lydney in the estuary of the River Severn sought judicial review of the defendant Environment Agency's decision to reduce his catch from approximately 600 per year to 30 and less. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the only rational conclusion was that there had been no basis for drawing any conclusion as to the numbers of salmon caught at Lydney that would otherwise spawn in the River Wye, as provided in the report on which the Environment Agency had relied in making its decision. 

Practice – Parties. The first defendant in the proceedings, S, applied to be removed as a defendant. He contended that a shareholders' agreement at the heart of the proceedings did not affect him, as he had not been a shareholder. The Commercial Court held that, on the true construction of the agreement, it was appropriate to remove S as a party. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The deceased had suffered from depression. He was referred by his GP to a doctor at the defendant NHS trust for treatment. The doctor assessed the deceased as suffering from bipolar affective disorder, advised him on a course of treatment and discharged him back to the care of the GP. Shortly thereafter, the deceased committed suicide. The claimants, including the deceased's widow, contended that the defendant was liable for breach of duty. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that breach of duty had not been established. The doctor's care had been of an acceptable standard and there was no evidence to indicate that, had she offered another outpatient appointment, the deceased's death would have been prevented. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant's application for asylum had been refused, he had been returned to Mongolia and he had served a sentence of imprisonment. He escaped from prison and returned to the United Kingdom and claimed asylum again. He gave evidence regarding the treatment he had sustained while in prison. He was granted asylum. The Queen's Bench Division, during a trial of preliminary issues related to the claimant's application for damages, held that Council Directive (EC) 2004/38 and Council Directive (EC) 2005/85 did confer rights on the individual. Whether the breaches alleged in respect of those rights were such as to be 'sufficiently serious' so as to give rise to a claim for reparation under EU law was not made out at the preliminary hearing. Further, the breaches that were shown were not directly causative of the damage sustained.