Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant's claim for judicial review in respect of an order granting development consent, made under the Planning Act 2008, in relation to the construction of a resource recovery facility was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held, inter alia, that, since the parliamentary joint committee had reported on the order without amendment, there had been no change in the development for which consent had been granted which might have led to the need for a further assessment of its effects on the environment. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse his application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of his long residence and art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application in part, held that the Secretary of State had failed to consider material considerations. Accordingly, the decision was unlawful insofar as it concerned the assessment of the claimant's case under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules and under the guidance outside the Immigration Rules. 

Reparation – Personal injury – Liability – Quantum. Court of Session: In an action by an 81-year-old pursuer who alleged that she fell and broke her collar bone due to the negligence of a bus driver employed by the defender, the court made an award of £10,000 for solatium after holding that the defenders were liable to the pursuer because their driver, contrary to the defenders' policy and in breach of common law, failed to ensure that a passenger who he had seen was elderly and unsteady was seated before moving off, and the movement of the bus while the pursuer was not seated caused her to fall. 

Damages and compensation – Miscarriage of justice – Ex gratia compensation scheme. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings in which the petitioner, whose rape conviction was quashed on appeal, challenged decisions refusing his application under a non-statutory ex gratia scheme for compensating persons who had spent time in custody following wrongful conviction, the court, agreeing with the Lord Ordinary, held that the Scottish Ministers' decision letters did not demonstrate rational and adequately reasoned exercises of their undoubtedly wide discretion in determining whether there were, in the petitioner's case, exceptional circumstances that justified compensation. 

Vicarious liability – Employer and employee. An incident at the defendants' bodywork repair shop occurred when a co-employee of the claimant, PW, used a cigarette lighter in the vicinity of the claimant, whose overalls had been sprinkled with a highly inflammable thinning agent. As a result, the overalls caught fire and caused the claimant injury. The judge found that the defendant was not vicariously liable for PW's actions. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the real cause of the claimant's injuries had been the conduct of PW, which could not be said to have occurred in the course of his employment. 

Criminal evidence – Res gestae. The appellant appealed, by way of case stated, against his conviction for assault by beating. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the justices had been correct in admitting the out of court statements of the complainant to police and evidence of her 999 calls. The circumstances surrounding the incident meant that the evidence of the telephone calls, together with the conversations with the police officers that had occurred shortly afterwards, had fallen well within the res gestae principle. 

Minor – Abduction. E's parents had separated and he lived with his mother in Spain. Following an extended stay visiting his father in England, he did not return to Spain. The judge refused the mother's application for an order, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980, that he be returned to Spain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the mother's appeal, held, inter alia, that the judgment allowed one to be satisfied that the judge had had the relevant features well in mind and had balanced them in a way that had been open to him. 

Immigration – Deportation. The respondent, MA, originated from Somalia and came to the United Kingdom, where he was granted indefinite leave to remain. MA was convicted of rape and attempted rape, for which he was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, and a decision to deport him to Somaliland was served. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) allowed MA's appeal against the deportation decision and the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appellant Secretary of State's appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Secretary of State's appeal, held, inter alia, that the FTT's error in having considered the case outside the Immigration Rules had been a material error of law and the matter would be remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration. 

Employment – Contract. The claimants were each employed by one of seven individual bargaining units for which the defendant was responsible. The defendant decided to unilaterally alter its code of practice in relation to the trigger points for procedures to be taken following absences due to staff sickness. The claimants maintained that the code formed part of their contractual terms and conditions of employment and the defendant was not entitled to make unilateral changes.The Queen's Bench Division upheld the claimants' case and granted a declaration in terms. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. A 10-month old child was admitted to hospital with three fractures to the leg and a tear under the tongue. A local authority brought proceedings for a care order and a placement order in respect of the child. The Family Division conducted a fact-finding hearing and found that, on the facts, the father had caused the child's injuries, but the mother had not. It further found that the parents had separated and that they were unlikely to resume their relationship in the future.