Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants, two entrepreneurs, brought an action against the defendants a not-for-profit organisation called 'The Spamhaus Project' which tracked and reported on sources of spam on the internet. The action was in libel and was in respect of material published on the defendants website in the United Kingdom. The defendants applied to strike out the pleadings or alternatively for summary judgment. The Queen's Bench dismissed the defendants application. 

Employment – Dismissal. The employee was dismissed prior to the transfer of the undertaking in which she worked. That decision was appealed successfully by the transferee. The employment tribunal held that the decision taken on the appeal hearing could not be effective until there was (a) a decision to reinstate the employee, as well as to allow the appeal and (b) it had been communicated to the employee, but that neither had occurred. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that there was no need for an express decision as to reinstatement to be taken, nor was communication relevant for giving effect to the revival of a contract of employment following a successful appeal against an earlier dismissal. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant applied to quash the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing his planning appeal for residential development, associated access and landscaping. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the inspector had misinterpreted and misapplied para 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to the policies in the local plan, he had erred in assuming that the physical limits boundary had been defined in the local plan and he had failed to assess the significance of a heritage asset. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Lithuania to face trial for a joint enterprise offence of organising the transportation of prostitutes to the United Kingdom and then gaining profits from the acts of prostitution of those transported. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, gave guidance on the new 'forum bar' provision in s 19B of the Extradition Act 2003. It held that there was no forum bar to the appellant's extradition. 

Practice – Interim remedy. The proceedings concerned property previously owned by an individual, W, the subject of the largest ever personal bankruptcy in British legal history. While insolvent, W had sold the property to his father, who had later made it the subject of a trust. The property was seized by court enforcement officers, following an arbitration award in the defendant's favour. The claimants claimed ownership of, and sought injunctions in relation to, the property seized. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the first claimant's application, held that he had not established that there was a serious issue to be tried. The alleged transaction by W to sell the chattels to his father had not been not an assignment and did not fall within the meaning of the words of s 4 of the Bills of Sale Act 1878. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled, amongst other things, that arts 2 and 6(1) of the Council Directive (EC) 2000/78, should be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, to end discrimination based on age, took account of the periods of service prior to the age of 18, but which, simultaneously, included a rule, applicable in reality only to employees who were subject to that discrimination, which extended by one year the period required for advancement in each of the three first salary steps and which, in so doing, definitively maintained a difference in treatment based on age. 

Housing – Local authority. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision not to consider whether her circumstances were exceptional and to treat her as eligible for housing allocation despite her not fulfilling the residency criteria in the housing allocation scheme. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the scheme had not empowered the authority to disapply the eligibility criteria in an exceptional case. Further, the scheme had not unlawfully fettered the authority's statutory powers and there was no evidence that, in devising the scheme, the authority had failed to have regard to the ministerial guidance and such failure could not be inferred. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant applied to quash the decision of the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing her planning appeal. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that, although the Secretary of State had not followed another decision or expressly departed from it, giving clear and proper reasons for having done so, consideration of the other decision would not have made a difference in the present case. Further, the Secretary of State had correctly treated the best interests of the children affected by the decision as a primary consideration. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for the development of a wind farm and an access track. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority had had full regard to the development plan and the priority which should be given to its provisions, and had applied the two-stage analysis proposed by the claimant. Further, the conditions imposed appeared to satisfy the applicable test and no positive evidence that a condition could be met was required. 

Criminal law – Child sex offences. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a community sentence imposed on a dance instructor who had had sexual relationships with two 15 year old students had been unduly lenient. The sentence was substituted for one of four years' imprisonment.