Latest Cases

Natural Justice – Duty to act fairly. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to close a school and merge it with another. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority had failed to: (i) set out in the consultation document the alternatives considered and the reasons why they had been discounted; (ii) address the requirement that standards in the new school would be, at least, equivalent to those at the school; (iii) provide a community impact assessment with the consultation document; and (iv) provide the Regional Assembly members with the relevant documents. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State to grant the second interested party permission for the erection of a single wind turbine. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that: (i) the inspector had been entitled to accept, and had accepted, conclusions about the effects on listed buildings; (ii) had the inspector addressed the effects on a specified scheduled ancient monument, he would have reached the same overall conclusion; (iii) the inspector had not misinterpreted the relevant development plan; and (iv) the inspector had not misinterpreted the National Planning Policy Framework, nor applied it improperly. 

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant General Dental Council to set its annual retention fee on the basis that there had been a failure to properly consult and re-consult after a fundamental change of position. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the consultation had not been transparent, as it had not explained the position in clear and accessible terms, enabling consultees to provide intelligent and informed responses. However, it had not been conspicuously unfair not to re-consult, as there had not been a fundamental change. 

Immigration – Practice. Following the transfer of proceedings from the Administrative Court to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), the present case concerned the determination of preliminary issues concerning the defendant Secretary of State's failure to serve an acknowledgement of service (AOS). The tribunal held that, in judicial review cases transferred from the Administrative Court to the tribunal, the applicable procedural regime was that contained in the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, SI 2008/2698. Further, the discretionary sanction enshrined in r 29(3) of the Rules extended to cases where the AOS had been lodged with the tribunal, but had not been served on the claimant. 

Medical practitioner – Appeal against determination of disciplinary committee. The appellant Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care appealed against a decision of the Conduct and Competence Committee of the first respondent Nursing and Midwifery Council's (the NMC) decision to impose a conditions of practice order on the second respondent registered general nurse for nine months. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the decision had been informed by a serious procedural irregularity, due to the NMC's failure to adequately reflect the seriousness of the second respondent's conduct in the charges. The matter would be remitted with a direction to the NMC that it had to amend the charges. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a member state under which an exemption from gift tax relating to certain properties that were protected on account of their forming part of the national cultural and historical heritage was limited to those properties situated in the territory of that member state, provided that that exemption was not excluded in the case of properties that could form part of the cultural and historical heritage of that member state despite being located in the territory of another state. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The claimant company, which manufactured and repaired ice cream vans, brought proceedings against the defendants, who had made their own ice cream vans. The Patents Court held that, on the evidence, the defendants had all infringed certain registered designs and the design rights in the designs. The second and third defendants had infringed a trade mark, and the third defendant was jointly liable for the first and second defendants' infringements of the registered design, the design rights in the designs and the trade mark. 

Immigration – Education. The claimant educational institution sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's revocation of its Tier 4 licence. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been failings in the management and administration of the claimant which had meant that specific and general duties to comply with the grant of highly trusted sponsor status had not always been met. The Secretary of State had been entitled, on that basis, to reach the decisions she had. 

Parent and child – Specific issue order – Contact. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by a father who, because of concerns that he would not be able to afford the costs of post-relocation contact, in an appeal against a later interlocutor asked the court to recall a sheriff's interlocutor granting a relocation order allowing the mother of his five-year-old daughter to relocate to the USA with her, the court held that the interlocutor granting the relocation order was a final one, reviewing that interlocutor only arose if the need to do so was consequential on the setting aside of the later interlocutor, and there was no basis for setting aside the later interlocutor. 

Negligence – Damage. The deceased was admitted to the accident and emergency department of the defendant hospital, she died and her husband, the claimant brought a claim on behalf of her estate. The defendant admitted some of the breaches of duty pleaded but maintained that the deceased would have died even if there had been earlier diagnosis and she had received reasonably competent treatment within the time available. The Queen's Bench Division held that had the deceased been treated non-negligently during and following her arrival at the hospital, she would probably have survived.