Latest Cases

Capital gains tax – Computation of chargeable gains – Contingent liability. Court of Session: Allowing an appeal by a taxpayer against a decision of the Upper Tribunal, the court held that a sum a company chairman paid in settlement of a court action was made for a contingent liability in respect of representations he made on a disposal by way of sale of his shares in the company within the meaning of s 49(1)(c) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, so as to require adjustment of his liability to capital gains tax under s 49(2). 

Mauritius – Constitutional law. The appellant senior local government officer was repeatedly arrested by a police officer who was working for the Mauritian Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC), under the provisions of s 24(5)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2002. He appealed against the dismissal of his application for leave to seek judicial review, contending that the secondment of police officers to ICAC was unconstitutional. The Privy Council held that the secondment was not unconstitutional, as a seconded policeman remained in the police service and subject to the control of the Commissioner of Police. 

Human rights – Right to fair trial. Following the quashing of his convictions, the claimant sought damages under arts 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Lord Chancellor applied to strike out the claim and, alternatively, for summary judgment. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the applications, held that the claimant's case under art 6 of the Convention reached nowhere near establishing that the judge had acted in bad faith. Further, the claim under art 5 of the Convention could not succeed, as the judge had made an error of fact or law in the handling of the criminal case. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant former undercover police officer within the defendant Chief Constable's police force sought damages for psychiatric injury. The Chief Constable contended that the claimant's adjustment disorder was attributable to his own misconduct in abusing cocaine. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that the chronic adjustment disorder from which the claimant suffered had been caused by the fact that he had been confronted with his own misconduct and that he had had to face the traumatic consequences of that. 

Hospital – Negligence. The claimant widow and administratrix of the estate of the deceased, JD, brought a claim against the defendant NHS trust. The pharmacology experts agreed that the immediate cause of JD's death was an excess dose of magnesium. However, the hospital maintained that, by the time that was administered, the condition of JD was such that, within minutes or at least shortly thereafter, he would have died in any event. The claimant denied that. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held, inter alia, that JD would not have survived for any significant time, even if the defendant, in serious breach of duty, had not administered the fatal dose of magnesium. 

Education – Teachers. The appellant teacher appealed against the Secretary of State's decision, imposing a prohibition order with a period of review at two years. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the Secretary of State had not been required to follow the contrary recommendation of the respondent National College for Teaching and Leadership's professional conduct panel. Accordingly, the Secretary of State had not been wrong in reaching the decision that the panel's recommendation should not be followed. 

Legal aid – Advice and assistance. The underlying issue in the proceedings concerned whether a child should live with his parents or with other members of his wider family, or whether he should, as the local authority argued, be adopted outside the family. The Family Court had previously made orders as to legal aid and the funding of an expert assessment of whether each parent required the assistance of an intermediary. In the present judgment, it held, inter alia, that the cost of funding an intermediary in court properly fell on Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, but where the services of an intermediary were required otherwise than during a court hearing, the cost fell on the Legal Aid Agency. 

Education – Local education authority. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to fund an individualised programme for her, which was inconsistent with that contained in her learning difficulty assessment (the LDA). The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority had not had to arrange for the education or training provision specified in the LDA. Further, the claimant and her parents had been consulted on the decision, unreasonable public expenditure would not be incurred and there had been no breach of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Practice – Litigation in person. The present proceedings concerned issues arising out the father's status as a litigant in person. The Family Court held that, where a party was unrepresented and 'unable to examine or cross-examine a witness effectively,' the court had a duty to assist that party, under s 31G(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Where the court was satisfied that it was not 'appropriate' for the judge to put questions to an alleged victim, the court had to arrange for a legal representative to be appointed to put those questions. Further, the court might direct that the costs of such a representative be borne by Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service. 

Town and country planning – Development plan. The claimant applied, under s 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, to quash the local plan adopted by the first defendant local planning authority. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority and the inspector appointed by the second defendant Secretary of State had acted lawfully in concluding that the plan had provided sufficient protection for greater horseshoe bats, and the inspector's reasons had been adequate and intelligible. Further, although the authority had failed to expressly invite the public to comment on the strategic environmental assessment and its addendum, the claimant's interests had not been substantially prejudiced.