Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Appeal to Minister against refusal of permission for development. The case involved a challenge to the way the defendant Secretary of State recovered appeals relating to travellers' pitches in the Green Belt. The Planning Court upheld the claimants' challenges based on breaches of ss 19 and 149 of the Equality Act 2010, as the Secretary of State had taken no steps to address unlawful discrimination and had had no regard to the public sector equality duty. Their challenge under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights succeeded because of the substantial delays that had occurred in the claimants' cases. Accordingly, the Secretary of State's recovery of their cases would be quashed. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 should be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an allegation of infringement of copyright and rights related to copyright guaranteed by the member state of the court seised, that court had jurisdiction, on the basis of the place where the damage had occurred, to hear an action for damages in respect of an infringement of those rights resulting from the placing of protected photographs online on a website accessible in its territorial jurisdiction. That court had jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the member state within which the court was situated. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The first defendant was at the material times a spokesman for the unincorporated association known as The Coalition of Badger Action Groups (CBAG), which formed a part of the movement to stop the culling of badgers. The claimants were farmers and other interested parties that had been given permission to do a pilot cull of badgers. An injunction was granted and the claimants claimed that the defendants had breached the terms and that the first defendant should be committed for contempt of court. The Queen's Bench Division held that the breaches had been proved to the required standard. 

Land – Acquisition of title by possession. The issue on the appeal was whether an application for a person to be registered, under the Land Registration Act 2002, as the proprietor of a registered estate in land by reason of a period of adverse possession was valid, where part of the relevant period of possession consisted of the occupation of a residential building in circumstances constituting the commission of a criminal offence, under s 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the enactment of s 144 of LASPO, and the commission of an offence under it, did not have any material effect on the operation on the law of adverse possession. 

Legal aid – Entitlement. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the defendant Lord Chancellor had exceeded his powers, under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, when making reg 33 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/3098. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that reg 33 of the Regulations was not ultra vires, as the Lord Chancellor had a wide power, which was not limited to procedural matters. Further, reg 33 of the Regulations had not thwarted or frustrated the Act's purpose, but was consistent with it by ensuring that the domestic violence exception had been strictly confined to its intended scope and not exploited. 

Value added tax – Zero-rating. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the taxpayer company's appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)(FTT) in which the FTT had decided that although 'static caravans' sold by the taxpayer were zero-rated, verandas sold by the taxpayer along with those caravans were not zero-rated. The tribunal decided that there was nothing in Group 9 of Sch 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to exclude a veranda from the scope of zero-rating by reason of being part of a single supply of which the principal supply was a caravan. 

Counsel – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant barrister had been disbarred for serious misconduct by the Bar Disciplinary Tribunal (the tribunal). The appellant appealed to the Visitors to the Inns of Court (the visitors), on the ground that there had been unfairness by the respondent Bar Standards Board in having failed to disclose a statement of the principal witness against him. The appeal was dismissed. In judicial review proceedings, the judge declined to quash the visitors' decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that there had been a real possibility that the tribunal would have come to a different conclusion had disclosure been made. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of four years' imprisonment for an offence contrary to s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 had been unduly lenient, in circumstances where there had been a sustained attack and the victim had been left with double vision. The sentence was substituted for one of seven years and four months' imprisonment. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. CP, who was 91 and suffered from dementia, was taken by the applicant local authority and kept at a locked dementia unit for 17 months. It was agreed that his detention there had violated his rights under arts 5 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Protection considered, among other things, a consent order and declarations as to CP's capacity. 

Libel and slander – Justification. In a preliminary hearing, in libel proceedings concerning a premier league footballer, the Queen's Bench Division gave a ruling on the meaning of the words complained of and also refused the defendant's application to amend its defence.