Latest Cases

Competition – Competition Appeal Tribunal. The claimants sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant's predecessor, the Office of Fair Trading (the OFT), refusing a payment to them similar to that made to a third party (TMR), pursuant to the OFT's assurance to TMR. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the OFT had given the assurance that TMR would benefit from a successful appeal by another party against its finding of infringement, under Ch 1 of the Competition Act 1998. It had been unfair for the OFT to give TMR that unknown advantage, but the mistake should not be replicated in the claimant's favour, as public funds were concerned. 

Shipping – Cargo. The parties contracted for the shipping of Russian grain. However, during loading, the grain was found to be of unsuitable quality. The buyers appealed from an award of the GAFTA board of appeal. The Commercial Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, among other things, the board of appeal had been wrong in law to ignore the totality of the evidence bearing on the question of whether the cargo had been contractually compliant. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing him leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 4 (General) student under the points based system for failing to provide evidence of funds available within the month before the application. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, accepted contemporaneous documents showing that the bank statement submitted with the application had been out of date. Further, the evidential flexibility policy did not cover the error. 

Air traffic – Civil Aviation Authority. The Administrative Court held that it was the Secretary of State for Transport (SST) and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), rather than the Secretary of State for Defence and the Ministry of Defence (MOD), which had statutory responsibility for safety in relation to the use of a RAF airport by civil aircraft. Those responsibilities could not be delegated to the MOD or Military Aviation Authority (MAA). However, the SST and CAA could rely upon information and assessments provided by the MAA and MOD to fulfil their statutory functions. A declaration that the CAA had power to impose conditions on the notification of government aerodromes in relation to matters concerning the safety of the use by civil aircraft of such aerodromes would not be made because it was uncontentious. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Following their separation, the mother and father of three children were engaged in long-running private law proceedings in respect of the care of their children, in particular, the amount of time that they should spend with their father. The judge made an order, pursuant to s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989, against the father, prohibiting further applications for a period of three years. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the father's appeal, held, inter alia, that there had been a need for a significant period, not a very long period, but a significant period, of absence of litigation, or at least control of litigation through the filter of s 91(14) of the Act, and three years was not a period that could be properly challenged in the context of the present case. 

Building contract – Contract administrator. The claimant sought declaratory relief as to the interpretation of the JCT standard building contract, without quantities, revision 2 (2009). The Technology and Construction Court held that the proper construction of cl 1.9.3 of the contract was that, following the issue of the final certificate, the contract provided for just one set of proceedings, started within 28 days, in which that final certificate could be challenged. The only exception to that was if the original proceedings had been commenced by way of adjudication: then, the position was governed by cl 1.9.4 of the contract, although a protective arbitration notice or claim form would also be permissible, provided that, too, had been issued within the 28 days. 

National Health Service – Dentist. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on the proper interpretation of the Standard General Dental Services Contract entered into in accordance with the National Health Service (General Dental Services Contracts) Wales Regulations 2006, SI 2006/490. 

Judgment – Order. The claimant had brought proceedings against the defendant, seeking an account in respect of a business. At trial, the master took an income and expenditure account in respect of a London property, and concluded that the defendant owed the claimant money. He also determined the defendant's claims, numbered STP1 to STP16, and gave judgment in the defendant's favour on some of those claims. The claimant appealed, maintaining that the procedural orders that had given rise to the hearing before the master had not entitled him to determine the 16 STP claims. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal. It held, inter alia, that, in the circumstances, the claimant could not succeed in arguing that there had been no jurisdiction under the procedural orders for the master to have dealt with the those claims. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant company challenged the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing planning permission for demolition of existing buildings and the construction and operation of a recycling and energy recovery facility. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had failed to consider the allocation of the site as a waste management facility in the Green Belt and a statement that the site would be removed from the Green Belt in the future, and to weigh those factors in the very special circumstances balance alongside those matters which he had taken into account. 

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Bank Tejarat for annulment of certain decisions and regulations of the European Council concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as they concerned Bank Tejarat.