Latest Cases

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant had suffered severe injury as a consequence of negligence on the part of the defendant during her birth. The defendant had accepted liability and a number of heads of damages were agreed. However, other damages fell to be determined by the court. The Queen's Bench Division made awards of damages in respect of general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, accommodation (including the installation and upkeep of a hydrotherapy pool) and the additional costs of an annual family holiday until the claimant reached the age of 19. 

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. 

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. 

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 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. 

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. 

Broadcasting – Content of programs. The defendant Ofcom dismissed the claimant registered charity's complaint about a broadcast of the interested party (Channel 4). The claimant challenged the decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the applicable procedure had not been unfair and had not lacked rational justification by virtue of the fact that only Channel 4 had had the opportunity to make representations on Ofcom's preliminary view. Further, Ofcom had not failed to obtain further information or assistance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and had not irrationally concluded that there had been insufficient evidence that harm had been caused to children. 

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%. 

Prison – Discipline. The claimant serving prisoner sought judicial review of the National Offender Management Service's decision, upholding an adjudication finding against him for disobeying a lawful order. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the adjudication hearing had been fatally flawed by the error in receiving evidence in the claimant's absence, without having given him the opportunity to question it or to adduce further evidence on the point himself. The review decision had been fatally flawed in that it had failed to address the complaint made at all. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. The claimant was awarded £7,500 in general damages after suffering severe post-traumatic stress disorder for the first few months, ameliorating over the first 12 months, with minor symptoms persisting until total recovery after 19 months. Alopecia was pre-existing but increased in size by a factor of x2.5, which was expected to be permanent.