Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.