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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.