Latest Cases

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. 

Employment – Continuity. The employee, having brought a claim for unfair dismissal against the employer, contended that her employment had transferred to it. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) found that it had transferred and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employer's appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the employer's appeal, held that the tribunal and the EAT had been correct to have concluded that the employee had constituted an 'organised grouping of employees' to whom reg 3(3)(a)(i) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246 (TUPE), applied. Therefore, a service provision change had occurred, pursuant to reg 3(1)(b)(ii) of TUPE. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve an activated suspended sentence for burglary of items valued at approximately £50. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that it would not be proportionate to order the appellant's extradition. The important factors in the present case included: (i) the limited value of the items stolen; (ii) the appellant had been subjected to lengthy electronically monitored curfews; (iii) the length of his sentence and the fact that he had had no idea that the sentence had been activated; and (iv) the delay in seeking extradition. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The appellant Indian national appealed against the refusal of entry clearance. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the causal connection between the historic injustice, namely, the effect of the policy removing the unrestricted right of entry for British overseas citizens from 1968 to 2003, and the appellant's circumstances had been established, notwithstanding the lacuna in the evidence. The courts should not be unduly rigorous in the application of the causation test, given that its significance was to redress the historic injustice. Accordingly, it was declared that the appellant was entitled to entry clearance. 

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. 

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.