Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Dentist – Professional misconduct. The appellant dentist appealed against the Professional Conduct Committee (the PCC) of the respondent General Dental Council's findings against him and the order that his name be erased from the register. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the PCC's conclusions that the appellant's conduct had been dishonest and financially motivated had not been wrong. Further, the PCC had been amply justified in deciding that only erasure sufficed. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, seeking to quash the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission to the interested party for a wind turbine. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the reasoning of the screening opinion was inadequate and it had failed to address the question properly of the impact which had had to be considered. As that step of the process had been legally flawed, there was no discretion not to quash the planning permission.