Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The mother's application, pursuant to s 24(2)(a) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, for leave to apply for the revocation of a placement order made in respect of her son was refused. The judge held that the first stage of the test, namely, a sufficient change of circumstances, had not been met and, consequently, did not go on to consider whether to exercise her discretion. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the mother's appeal, held, inter alia, that the judge would have been incapable of forming a valid judgment about the change in the mother's circumstances without making findings on the disputed facts before her, and had set the bar too high at the first stage of the test. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employees were dismissed for refusing to agree to new contractual terms. They brought a claim against the employer for indirect age discrimination, claiming that the new terms put older employees at a disadvantage. The employment tribunal held that the employer had applied a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) for the purposes of s 19 of the Equality Act 2010, but that the PCP was objectively justified. On appeal by both parties, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had not erred in: (i) finding that the new terms had amounted to a PCP; or (ii) finding that the PCP had been objectively justified. 

Trade mark – Infringement. Interflora applied for an interim injunction pending the retrial of it's trade mark infringement claim against Marks and Spencer plc. The Chancery Division, dismissing the application, held that, whilst M&S's right to free speech did not justify refusing the interim injunction, looking at the case on an American Cyanamid basis and having regard to the irrevocable harm to M&S if it was granted, no interim injunction would be granted. 

Costs – Order for costs. The claimant was a group of companies, previously owned and controlled by the first and second defendants, who were alleged to have defrauded the claimant of substantial sums of money. The claimant's application to amend its particulars was unsuccessful and it was ordered to pay the defendants' costs, which amounted to around £945,000. The Commercial Court held that the fact that the total costs claimed were very high could not by itself be allowed to increase the sum awarded as an interim payment. A sum of £100,000 was ordered to be paid on account of the defendants' costs. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant applied for an order quashing the decision of the first defendant Secretary of State to dismiss his appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of planning permission. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application held that there was nothing legally wrong with the Secretary of State's conclusion that, although the policies for the supply of housing in the development plan had not been up to date and although the development would add to the supply of housing in the area, the proposal's conflict with the neighbourhood plan had been, in itself, a powerful and decisive factor against granting planning permission. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Entry Clearance Officer's refusal of entry clearance. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that there was no prior procedural unfairness in the defendant's treatment of the claimant's case and her previous refusal of entry clearance had not been unlawful on public law grounds. Further, the defendant's refusal to exercise her executive discretion so as to grant the claimant leave outside the Immigrations Rules was not irrational. 

Contract – Implied term. The claimants sought to sell off a company involved in the commercial exploitation of an oilfield. They entered into a participation agreement with the defendant bank. The bank sold the company for a price that the claimants considered too low, and they brought proceedings. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of the agreement, there had not been an implied term that the bank had been obliged to take reasonable precautions and exercise reasonable care to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani family sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions, refusing their applications for leave to remain outside the Immigration Rules. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the applications, held that nothing had changed the assessment of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), dismissing their appeals, the previous year. Equally, there was nothing to require a greater degree of analysis or detail in the supplementary decision letters dealing with the overriding provision of art 8 of the Convention and s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. 

Negligence – Occupiers Liability. The claimant was admitted to the Accident and Emergency department of the defendant hospital. Whilst on the premises he sustained serious injury by falling off a 30 foot wall. He brought a claim against the defendant under either the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 or, alternatively, if, which was not admitted, he was a trespasser at the time of the fall, under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the entire claim. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Nigerian national challenged the decision of the defendant Secretary of State to refuse him leave to enter the United Kingdom as a returning resident and to remove him to Nigeria. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, in circumstances where the letter purporting to grant the claimant indefinite leave to remain (ILR) had been procured irregularly by a dishonest Home Office employee, there was no record of a genuine decision to grant ILR to the claimant. Accordingly, his ILR had not been cancelled, giving him an in-country right of appeal, and it had been reasonable and lawful to immediately return him.