Latest Cases

European Union – Employment. In the course of proceedings between a Finnish trade union in the electricity sector and a company established in Poland, regarding pay claims arising out of employment relationships, the Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning, amongst other things, the interpretation of arts 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and art 3 of Directive (EC) 96/71 (concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services). 

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. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision that it had no jurisdiction to grant consent for works, as they were not 'underground works' and fell outside the scope of s 3(2) of the London Squares Preservation Act 1931. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that, on the proper construction of s 3(2) of the Act, none of the works were underground works or buildings. 

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 for the change of use from Class B8 to Class C3 of a property originally in Class B1. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held, amongst other things, that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in failing to give an opportunity to comment on whether there had been a change of use from B1 to B8 and the merits of the appeal if the proposal had been considered as B8 to C3, rather than B1 to C3. 

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. 

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. 

Value Added Tax – Supply of goods or services. Two sets of proceedings had concerned the repayment of VAT on management services provided to closed-end investment trusts companies, and a number of rulings had been made by the Chancery Division in respect of changes in the legislation that had affected the trusts' entitlement to reclaim VAT from the Revenue and Customs Commissioners. Both the trusts and the Revenue appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeals and, in so doing, clarified the scope of s 80(7) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. 

Shipping – Demurrage. The claimant carriers contracted with the defendant shippers to carry goods in containers to a port in Bangladesh. The containers were not removed from the port, and the carriers claimed demurrage from the shippers. The Commercial Court held that, although the shippers had been in repudiatory breach of the contract, there had been no basis for supposing that the carrier had been suffering financial loss as a result of the detention of the containers. In the circumstances, keeping the contracts alive when the only purpose of doing so could be to claim demurrage had been wholly unreasonable. 

Solicitor – Retainer. The claimant brought an action against the defendant firm of solicitors, alleging that the firm had failed to prepare and issue proceedings against third parties in respect of a construction dispute, or had failed to advise him to issue proceedings against those entities. The Technology and Construction Court, dismissing the claim, held that the defendant firm had not been under duty to advise the claimant to issue proceedings against any or all of the third parties. 

Anonymity – Court proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, although each application would have to be considered individually, a limited derogation from the principle of open justice would normally be necessary in relation to hearings to approve a settlement of a claim made by a child or protected party, to enable the court to do justice to the claimant and his family, by ensuring respect for their family and private lives. An anonymity order seemed to provide a reasonable degree of protection both against an unwarranted invasion of privacy and an interference with the right to family life, and against such other risks as there might be, whether of dissipation of assets or otherwise. Unless satisfied, after hearing argument, that it was not necessary to do so, the judge should make an anonymity order for the protection of the claimant and their family.