Latest Cases

Criminal law – Committal. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendants in respect of his having been in remanded in custody in respect of offences under the Identity Cards Act 2006. His claims for a declaration and damages for breach of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the tort of false imprisonment were struck out. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal in respect of the art 5 claims. It held, inter alia, that it was implicit in art 5(1)(c), as well as art 5(3) of the Convention, that the investigating/prosecuting authorities were required to bring the relevant facts to the attention of the court as soon as possible. The claimant's appeal in respect of false imprisonment was dismissed. 

Practice – Family proceedings. The Family Court considered expert evidence in family proceedings relating to: (i) the capacity of a witness to give evidence; (ii) the witness veracity. The court held that in the present case, it had been unnecessary to order a veracity assessment in order to assist the children's ability to give evidence. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In March 2015, a judge gave the mother permission to amend her pleadings in pending litigation in family proceedings to include a reference to a document/agreement in respect of which the father claimed without prejudice privilege. The father sought permission to appeal to impugn the decision of the judge to admit that agreement in evidence as being one which was wrong as a matter of law. The issue was whether the documents in question had come into being in contemplation of a dispute, actual or impending. The Family Division ruled that it could not be said that there had been between them a real dispute which was then capable of compromise. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. Following the grounding of a vessel, proceedings arose between the parties. A dispute arose as to whether the claim should be heard in the English or Turkish jurisdiction. The English court issued an anti-suit injunction, preventing the issuing of proceedings in England against the claimant protection and immunity club. The Commercial Club held that, among other things, sufficient grounds existed to continue the anti-suit injunction. 

European Union – Patents. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union was founded. The request had been made in proceedings between Merck Canada Inc. and Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd and Sigma Pharmaceuticals plc, concerning the importation into the United Kingdom of a pharmaceutical product called 'Singulair' from Poland. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision to decline to determine her retrospective planning application, in the exercise of its discretion under s 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Planning Court, considering the ambit of s 70C of the Act for the first time, held that the authority had been entitled to infer that the claimant's motive in seeking retrospective planning permission had been to delay enforcement action and had not exercised its discretion in a manner challengeable on public law grounds. 

Housing – Local authority. The defendant Secretary of State decided that the claimant local authority was obliged to fund NA's accommodation, as he was ordinarily resident in its area. The claimant sought judicial review, relying on s 24(5) of the National Assistance Act 1948, deeming a person ordinarily resident in a local authority area when he was, in fact, ordinarily resident elsewhere. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the application, held that both references to residential accommodation in s 24(5) of the Act concerned that provided under the Act and that the deeming provision had no effect on the conclusion that NA was ordinarily resident in the claimant's area. 

Competition – Merger. The first respondent Competition and Markets Authority (the CMA) had concluded that the minority stake held by the appellant, Ryanair, in the second respondent, Aer Lingus, had resulted in a substantial lessening of competition. The CMA ordered Ryanair to reduce its stake to 5% (the divestiture order). The Competition Appeal Tribunal dismissed Ryanair's appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing Ryanair's appeal, held, inter alia, that the consultation process had not been procedurally unfair to Ryanair and the divestiture order had been neither ultra vires nor disproportionate. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to authorise variations to a contract with a developer to build a new mixed retail, residential and transport centre. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the variations to the contract had resulted in a contract which had been materially different in character and the authority's decision to authorise them, without having carried out a procurement process, as required by European Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 2004/18 and the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, SI 2006/5, had been unlawful. 

Employment – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 71(1)(a)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 (on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community), as amended, should be interpreted as meaning that a frontier worker who, immediately after the end of a full-time employment relationship with an employer in a member state, had been employed on a part-time basis by another employer in that same member state had the status of a partially unemployed frontier worker within the meaning of that provision.