Latest Cases

Road traffic – Regulation of traffic. The defendant local authority made an experimental traffic order and subsequently made it permanent (the RTO). The claimant, as a representative of a group opposed to the change, applied, under para 35 of Sch 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, for an order quashing the RTO. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there had been a clear breach of the obligation to hold a public inquiry and, as a result, a failure to comply with a relevant requirement in force before the RTO could be made. The omission had not been an inconsequential failure, as it had created obvious prejudice for the claimant's group. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The husband appealed against an order made in financial relief proceedings, which effectively shared between the parties (60% to the husband and 40% to the wife) certain shares belonging to the husband, by way of an order for a lump sum or series of lump sums as and when those shares came to be realised. The Family Division, in dismissing the husband's appeal, held, inter alia, that there was plainly no scientific way of evaluating the worth of the post-separation 'growing' of a matrimonial asset. It had to be an exercise of discretion. That was what the judge had carried out based on his overall knowledge of the case and he could not be criticised for his conclusion. 

Statutory duty – Breach. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant employer in respect of a personal injury sustained at work. The judge rejected the claimant's account of the accident, but was persuaded that the law compelled him to find for the claimant, and that he was 'prohibited' from making any finding of contributory negligence, as a result of the circumstance that the defendant was in breach of its statutory obligations to undertake a risk assessment and reduce the risk of injury. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal and dismissed the claim. It held, inter alia, that although the defendant had arguably been in breach of its duty, the accident had not fallen within the ambit of the risk which the defendant had arguably been required to assess. 

European Union – Patent. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that art 3(a) and (c) of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 469/2009 (concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products) had to be interpreted as meaning that, where a basic patent included a claim to a product comprising an active ingredient which constituted the sole subject-matter of the invention, for which the holder of that patent had already obtained a supplementary protection certificate, as well as a subsequent claim to a product comprising a combination of that active ingredient and another substance, that provision precluded the holder from obtaining a second supplementary protection certificate for that combination. 

Human rights – Discrimination. The claimant Irish travellers sought a declaration that s 33(2) of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which precluded the making of a home loss payment to a caravan dweller unless no suitable alternative site was available on reasonable terms, was incompatible with art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with art 8 of the Convention or art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, or both. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, having properly construed s 33(2) of the Act, held that the analogy the claimants sought to draw between their situation, and that of persons resident in bricks and mortar accommodation was plainly false. 

Company – Administration. The Companies Court held that a company had never been placed in administration where a meeting of its directors, purporting to enter it into administration, pursuant to para 22(2) of Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, had been inquorate. 

Agent – Secret commission. The appellants had taken out a loan arranged by the respondent credit broker. The respondent had received additional commission payments from the loan company and the payment protection insurer. The appellants had issued proceedings alleging that the respondent, in breach of its fiduciary duty owed to them, had received the additional commissions without having informed them either as to the fact of payment or as to the amount. The recorder dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal and held that there had been a fiduciary duty owed by the respondent to the appellants and that they had not given their informed consent to the additional commissions. Accordingly, the respondent was ordered to make an account of those payments to the appellants. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The offender, when aged 13, was involved with four others in the killing of a 16-year-old victim. The present proceedings concerned the review of the minimum term. The Administrative Court held that the reports on the offender were favourable and he had clearly made progress. However, that progress was no greater than would have been hoped. It was clear from the reports that he had not qualified at present for any tariff reduction. 

Tort – Harassment. The second claimant was the wife of the first claimant. The husband had been subjected to a course of harassment by the first defendant in respect of their business dealings. The husband's claim for harassment was allowed, but the wife's was not because, while she had been alarmed and upset, she had not been the target of the conduct. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the ability to bring a harassment claim extended beyond the targeted individual only to those other persons who were foreseeably, and directly, harmed by the course of targeted conduct of which complaint was made, to the extent that they could properly be described as victims of it. On that basis, the wife had established a cause of action for the statutory tort of harassment and she was awarded damages of £6,000. 

Immigration – Education. The claimant college sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's withdrawal of its Tier-4 sponsor licence. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been entitled to be suspicious about the robustness of the claimant's compliance with its duty to assess the English language ability of its students. She had also been entitled to conclude that the claimant had posed a serious risk to immigration control.