Latest Cases

Constitutional law – Foreign sovereign state. The parties had been engaged in arbitration and the claimants issued an arbitration claim form to seek to enforce the defendant's compliance with the tribunal's order. The claimants obtained the court's permission to serve the claim form on the defendant's solicitors and a further order for an expedited timetable for the determination of the arbitration claim and an abridgement of the time for filing an acknowledgement of service. The Commercial Court granted the defendant's application to set those orders aside. Section 12(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978 had applied as, under that section, the issue of an arbitration claim form constituted the institution of proceedings. Further, there had been no, or no operative, agreement as to the manner of service under s 12(6) of the Act. Finally, the defendant had not, in the circumstances, waived its right to rely on s 12 of the Act. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant local planning authority applied for an order, quashing the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, allowing the second defendant's appeal against its refusal of planning permission. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had properly understood para 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework and had applied it lawfully, and he had not failed to have regard to a material consideration or to give adequate reasons. Further, there was nothing procedurally unfair or contrary to natural justice about the way in which the inspector had conducted the appeal. 

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. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The offenders, Z and J, were part of a group of men who had been involved in the sexual exploitation of vulnerable young girls. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the offenders' sentences had been unduly lenient. J's sentence, for one count of sexual activity with a child, was increased to one of three years' detention. In respect of Z, a consecutive term of five years' imprisonment was imposed in respect of the offence of trafficking within the United Kingdom for the purposes of sexual exploitation. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, increased an offender's sentence for rape, where the judge had erred in giving a discount of three years to reflect the offender's courage in pleading guilty or his previous good character. The sentence of seven years' and two months' imprisonment was quashed and substituted for a sentence of ten years' imprisonment. 

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. 

European Union – Civil and commercial matters. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 5(1)(a), 5(3) and 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Kolassa, domiciled in Vienna (Austria), and Barclays Bank plc, established in London (United Kingdom), concerning an action for damages based on the contractual, precontractual, tortious or delictual liability of that bank as a result of the loss in value of a financial investment made by Mr Kolassa through a financial instrument issued by that bank. 

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. 

Landlord and tenant – Business premises. The judge, in dismissing the tenant's application for a new tenancy of a business premises, held that the relevant date for ascertainment of the landlord's intention to demolish and reconstruct the property on the termination of the tenant's tenancy, for the purposes of s 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, was the date of the hearing before him, and that intention had been established as at that date. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the tenant's appeal, held that s 30(1)(f) of the Act required the landlord to prove his intention at the date of the hearing and there was no practical reason why he should also be required to prove that he had held that intention at the date of service of his notice to terminate the tenancy. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant managing director of a company in administration brought an action against the defendants companies house and the registrar of companies in respect of incorrect information published on the company register. It was the claimant's case that the publication of the information was a breach of duty of care which had caused the company to go into administration. The Queen's Bench Division upheld the claimant's case applying the assumption of responsibility and the three stage Caparo test.