Latest Cases

Criminal law – Proceeds of crime. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by HS, against a confiscation order imposed by a judge in the Crown Court. The judge had found that HS had benefited from his criminal conduct, namely carrying on business as a scrap metal dealer without registering the required particulars, for a period in excess of six months. The court held that his receipts had been obtained as a result of or in connection with trading activity that was lawful in itself and not from the failure to register the particulars of the business that comprised the criminal offence. Since, as a matter of causation, his trading receipts had not been obtained as a result of or in connection with this failure to register his particulars, s 75(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 served to exclude the criminal lifestyle provisions. 

Tort – Conspiracy. The claimant company brought proceedings against the defendants, who, it contended, had all been involved in working against its interests by setting up the fourth defendant company whilst working for the claimant. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and conspiracy to injure by unlawful means had all been proven. 

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, refusing planning permission for the erection of a wind turbine. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had been entitled to take into account views from a heritage asset, although its windows were bricked up and it was inaccessible. Further, the absence of an express finding, under s 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, had made no difference, as there would have been no statutory presumption under s 38(6) of the Act in favour of development. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Negligence – Apportionment of liability. The claimant was employed a young player for a well known football club when he suffered a cardiac arrest and sustained serious injuries. He brought a case against the club and the various medical professionals employed by the club who had been looking after him. Causation was admitted. The Queen's Bench Division held that on the facts, both defendants had been in breach of their respective duties to the claimant. The appropriate apportionment as between the defendants to be the first defendant cardiologist was 30%, and the club, 70%. 

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. 

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.