Latest Cases

Prison – Prison conditions. Both claimants were serving prisoners who had been separated from their long-term partners in prison following a series of decisions. The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant's applications for judicial review of those decisions and held that the decisions had been 'in accordance with the law' within the meaning of art 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, proportionate and had complied with the procedural obligations inherent in art 8. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The claimant acted as an adjudicator in a dispute. He found largely against the defendant company. The defendant refused to pay his fee and he brought proceedings against it. The Technology and Construction Court held that the claimant had acted within jurisdiction and in accordance with the rules of natural justice, and was entitled to the sum claimed. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendants' decisions, holding him in custody for seven years after the expiry of the minimum term of his sentence of imprisonment for public protection. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that the defendants' failings had resulted in a 12 month period of avoidable delay, warranting something more than declaratory relief. Accordingly, the sum of £2,500 would be awarded for a breach of the claimant's rights under art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Sentence – Custodial sentence. Following the quashing of his indeterminate sentence, the claimant claimed for damages on the grounds that his detention after the expiry of the minimum term had been unlawful and was incompatible with art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claim, held that an appeal decision quashing a sentence did not render detention pursuant to that sentence unlawful within art 5(1) of the Convention. Further, as arbitrariness was predicated on unlawfulness, the claimant could not succeed in relation to the sentence. 

Company – Winding-up. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills presented a petition for the winding up of a company in the public interest. The main issue was whether the court should dispense with advertisement of the petition, accelerate the hearing of the petition and grant the winding up order on the day of the hearing. The Chancery Division, held that, in circumstances where the petition was in the public interest, it was entirely appropriate for the court to dispense with advertisement of the petition. The shareholders of the company would not be prejudiced by accelerating the hearing of the petition and, on the facts, the case was one where the company should be wound up in the public interest. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant had sustained a severe brain injury when he was 11 years of age. Liability was apportioned 30:70. The issue of quantum was to be decided. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant's condition had resulted from the organic brain injury, and could only reasonably be treated by a regime of 24-hour personalised care. He was to be awarded damages under the various usual heads of damage on that basis. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant bank obtained a worldwide freezing order against the defendant, regarding proceedings in Ukraine. The Ukrainian court found for the defendant and dismissed the claimant's appeals. The claimant applied to continue the freezing order. The Commercial Court held that the claimant could not show that it had a good arguable case against the defendant, and discharged the freezing order. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. B was five. Her mother was of Swedish background, while the father was English. The parents separated, and the mother sought permission to permanently relocate B to Sweden. The Family Division held that, in the circumstances, it was in B's interests for her to live in Sweden, and made orders for contact with her father accordingly. 

Immigration – Appeal. The proceedings concerned two appeals, both of which raised issues regarding the proper approach for the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) to adopt in dealing with deportation of foreigners who had committed crimes while in the United Kingdom. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal in respect of each of the UT's determinations. It held that, in each case, the UT had erred in law, in having failed to interpret and apply the new Immigration Rules and had failed properly to balance the factors relevant to an assessment under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. H was made bankrupt. His assets on the date of the bankruptcy included four pension policies. H did not wish to crystallise the policies and, without crystallisation, the precise value of the policies could not be determined. The applicant trustee in bankruptcy applied to the court, effectively seeking that H be ordered to crystallise his policies and to exercise his elections in a manner desired by the trustee. The Chancery Division held that there was no power to require H to elect in any particular way. The application would be dismissed.