Latest Cases

Nationality – British nationality. The claimant Chinese national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse her citizenship or naturalisation. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, having been provided with three different dates of birth, the Secretary of State had been entitled to infer that she had been being intentionally misled, such that the claimant had lacked good character. Further, there was no detectable unfairness or irrationality in the conclusion that she had reached, or evidence of an inflexible or mechanical application of the relevant policy. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The claimant issued negligence proceedings against the defendant general medical practitioners after suffering a stroke, which had been caused by undiagnosed infective endocarditis. The Queen's Bench Division held that the third defendant had breached her duty of care by failing to ask the claimant further questions and refer her to hospital immediately, which would have resulted in treatment preventing the stroke. However, no breach of duty had been established against the first and second defendants, as they had not been under a duty to ask further questions, given the claimant's presentation to them. 

Practice – Summary judgment. Following allegations of fraud in property development in Dubai, the defendant bank entered into a restructuring agreement (the RSA) with a number of parties, including the claimant. It subsequently claimed that the defendant had breached the RSA. The claimant commenced proceedings, and applied for summary judgment. The Commercial Court held that, on the expert evidence, it was not possible to conclude that the bank's case was fanciful, and dismissed the application. 

Power of attorney – Revocation. SB had Alzheimer's dementia and was in a nursing home. The Court of Protection considered an application by the Public Guardian to remove the two sons of SB from their role as attorneys under a lasting power of attorney. The Court held that it was appropriate to remove the two sons, and to appoint WY, SB's former neighbour, as a deputy to make decisions on SB's behalf, working jointly and severally with a panel deputy from a solicitors' firm. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to grant planning permission to the third defendant, subject to conditions. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had not been obliged to make a decision on the main issue, namely, the potential harm to a tree, but instead to substitute the imposition of a condition, given his approach to the application as a whole. Further, he had to be taken to have applied the balancing task required by the relevant policy. 

Criminal law – Murder. The Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court allowed the respondent's appeal against his conviction for murder on the basis of an erroneous provocation direction and substituted a conviction for manslaughter. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed and the respondent cross-appealed. The Privy Council held that the judge had not fallen into the error supposed by the Court of Appeal, and the conviction for murder and sentence were restored. The respondent's cross-appeal was dismissed, as the Court of Appeal had correctly held that fresh evidence could not affect the safety of the conviction and the respondent had been aware of the inference that scissors had been planted on the deceased. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Eritrean national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to detain him on the basis that it was inconsistent with her policy and given pending challenges to removal to Malta. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the policy did not require the Secretary of State to release a person from detention if her attention was drawn to extant challenges or on the issue of judicial review proceedings, if they could be resolved promptly. Accordingly, the time taken to absorb the implications of the lodging of the application for judicial review had not been unlawful. 

Contract – Formation. In a contractual dispute, a preliminary issue arose as to whether the terms and conditions in two contracts had been properly incorporated into the relevant purchase orders. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the evidence, the terms and conditions had not been properly incorporated. 

Town and country planning – Planning permission. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision to grant planning permission for a primary school and early years centre, and associated works. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the first stage of the core strategy policy, namely, whether the development proposed was acceptable under the policy, had been satisfied and properly assessed within the officer's report. With respect to the second stage, the officer's report had not significantly misled members of the planning committee, who had been familiar with the area and had been an informed readership, with respect to the policy criteria. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division considered a claim for clinical negligence arising from the admittedly inappropriate treatment of a patient with an unstable fracture of the spine which was initially misdiagnosed as stable. The claimant proved causation on the balance of probabilities.