Latest Cases

Dentist – Professional misconduct. The appellant dentist challenged the Professional Conduct Committee (the PCC) of the respondent General Dental Council's order that she be erased from the register of dentists. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the PCC had had ample evidence to conclude that the appellant's attitude to criticism and defects in her practice had shown that she had had little insight into her problems. Accordingly, it had been entitled to conclude that it could not be confident that the public would be protected by an approach less than erasure. 

Employment – Discrimination. Trinidad and Tobago had two classes of police officer, regular police officers (RPOs) and special reserve police officers (SRPs). The issue was whether, by virtue of section 4(d) of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago, the claimant present and former SRPs were entitled to equal treatment with RPOs. The Privy Council, in dismissing the claimants' appeal, held, inter alia, that the nub of the matter was whether the claimants and their comparators had been doing the same work or work which was not materially different. The courts below had found, as a fact, that the SRPs had performed duties of significantly lesser responsibilities than had the RPOs. There was no sufficient reason for departing from the normal practice, which was not to go behind the concurrent findings of fact in the courts below. 

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 major mixed use development. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority's officer had had power to grant permission once the matter had been considered by the board, without an express delegation of that power and without the outcome of negotiations concerning an agreement under s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 having been reported back to its board. 

Landlord and tenant – Recovery of possession. Sheriff Court: In an action in which landlords sought an order for recovery of possession of heritable property following the tenant's conviction for production of cannabis in the subjects, the court held that the defender had acted in an anti-social manner in relation to persons residing in, visiting, or otherwise engaged in lawful activity in the locality, but concluded that in the particular circumstances of the case it was not reasonable to make an order for recovery of possession of the subjects 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant applied to quash the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to grant planning permission for the erection of a free-standing wind turbine and associated development. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that, although the inspector had considered the harm to the listed buildings affected in accordance with para 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework, that, of itself, was insufficient to demonstrate that he had attached considerable weight to such harm. 

Immigration – Expulsion. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion by a petitioner who had challenged a decision to certify his claim that removal to Afghanistan would violate his right to respect for his private and family life as 'clearly unfounded', the court agreed with the Lord Ordinary that the fundamental flaw in the petitioner's submission was that he had sought to introduce the factual position in respect of the immigration decision—the disputed facts over the breach of the conditions of his student visa—into the assessment of the determination of the human rights claim. 

Freedom of information – Exempt information – Procedural fairness. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by a prisoner against a decision of the respondent concerning requests for information he made to the Scottish Prison Service under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, the court held that the respondent was entitled to conclude that the information was reasonably obtainable other than by means of a 2002 Act request, and that no breach of natural justice or the principles of fairness had occurred. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The applicant, a former junior trader at an investment bank in London, sought judicial review of the Financial Conduct Authority's decision to terminate an investigation into him. The Administrative Court dismissed the application and held that the decision to terminate the investigation had been rational. The matters which it had taken into account had been legitimate considerations and it had been for the FCA to determine what weight to give to them. It could not be said that the weight given to any consideration had been manifestly disproportionate. Further, the decision had been lawful. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 1, 6(1) and section (a) of the first paragraph of art 9 of Council Directive (EEC) 85/374 (on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states concerning liability for defective products). The requests had been made in an appeal on a point of law between Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH (BSMG), and AOK Sachsen-Anhalt — Die Gesundheitskasse and Betriebskrankenkasse RWE, compulsory health insurance organisations, concerning requests for reimbursement of the costs relating to the implantation of pacemakers and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator imported and marketed in the European Union by G. GmbH a company which subsequently merged with BSMG. 

Costs – Costs management. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant contractor for the costs of remedial works. The present proceedings were convened to determine the claimant's costs budget. The Technology and Construction Court held that the costs budget was an entirely unreliable document and that both the costs already incurred by the claimant and its estimated future costs were disproportionate and unreasonable. In the circumstances, the assessed costs/costs budget for the claimant would be a total of £4.28m.