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. 

Highway – Classification. The claimant issued proceedings, questioning the validity of an order, substituting a bridleway for a byway open to all traffic (BOAT) with respect to a lane. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State could properly, as a matter of judgment, have found the lane to be a BOAT or a bridleway and his decision had not been wrong. Accordingly, it was impossible to submit that the evidence had been such that the only reasonable conclusion had been that the lane had been open to vehicular traffic. 

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application, accepted contemporaneous documents showing that the bank statement submitted with the application had been out of date.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. 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the judge's decision sending his case to the Secretary of State for her decision whether the appellant was to be extradited in order to face trial for the war crime of shooting dead a civilian in 1991. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that it would not be unjust to extradite the appellant due to the passage of time and it would not be oppressive to extradite him on the basis of his physical and mental condition. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The local authority had allowed an application for planning permission for the development of a crematorium and cemetery in an area of green belt land and refused a competing application. On an application for judicial review, the judge, in quashing the decision, held that the authority had erred in interpreting para 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as treating cemeteries as appropriate development. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal. It held that the second bullet point in para 89 of the NPPF could not be read as covering a material change in the use of land so as to create a new cemetery. 

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. 

Contempt of court – Committal. In the course of care proceedings, the court was concerned that the defendant mother would remove her child from the jurisdiction. She failed to comply with an order that she hand over, to an officer of the court, the child's passport and other specified documents. The Family Division held that the mother was in breach of the order and was in contempt of court. A seven-day committal order was made in the circumstances.