Latest Cases

Counsel – Disciplinary jurisdiction. The present case concerned a group of applications for permission to appeal raising related issues. The one overarching question was whether, arguably, disciplinary proceedings against a number of barristers were invalid on the ground that some of the individuals who heard those proceedings or appeals therefrom were disqualified from sitting. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in refusing permission to appeal, held that the three barristers had no prospect of successfully appealing on the ground that the President or the Lord Chief Justice could only make appointments from the members of the Council of the Inns of Court pool. 

European Union – Treaty provisions. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the application by the European Commission for a declaration that by retroactively curtailing the right of taxpayers to recover tax which had been levied contrary to European Union law as set out in s 107 of the Finance Act 2007, the United Kingdom had failed to comply with its obligations under art 4(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The claimant trade union sought judicial review of the fee scheme for employment applications and appeals introduced by the Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal Feels Order 2013, SI 2013/1893. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had not shown that the principle of effectiveness had been infringed or that there had been indirect discrimination, in particular, against women. 

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. 

Damages – Personal injury. The defendant's car struck the claimant's vehicle from behind when the claimant was stationary at traffic lights. Liability was conceded but the parties were fundamentally at odds on the issue of quantum. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant had proved that his symptoms had been caused by a brain injury and not by psychological cause and it was on that basis that the various heads of damages would be assessed. 

Landlord and tenant – Tenancy. The tenants had paid a deposit for a property under the terms of their tenancy agreement. Subsequently, the statutory tenancy deposit scheme was introduced, but the deposit was never placed in such a scheme. The landlady purported to serve notice to quit under s 21 of the Housing Act 1988 and the tenants challenged the validity of that notice because of the failure to comply with the statutory deposit scheme. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that s 215 of the Housing Act 2004, as amended by the Localism Act 2004 and enacting Order, had not been retrospective in their operation and, since the tenants' deposit had never been kept in an authorised scheme, the possession notice had been invalid. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The appellant appealed against the decision of the inspector appointed by the first respondent Secretary of State, upholding an enforcement notice, requiring him to remove three pontoons. The Planning Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that, on the facts, the general proposition that a permission was either implemented or not and that a single permission could not be implemented in part had no relevance. Further, the inspector had made no error of law in his conclusion that the arrangement immediately previous to that existing at the relevant time had been unlawful. 

Practice – Settlement of action. In the course of complex litigation, an issue arose as to whether an agreement had been made between the parties in email correspondence. The Chancery Division held that a concluded agreement had been made, and it had not been conditional to further agreement. 

Practice – Striking out. The proceedings concerned case management decisions made during the course of litigation, which arose out of the termination of a joint venture agreement. By two orders, the judge dismissed the defendant's applications that the claim be struck out for, among other things, failure to comply with the timetable laid down by an earlier order in respect of disclosure, service of a schedule of account, and exchange of witness statements. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeals, held that the judge had approached the issues before him correctly and had been entitled to dismiss the defendant's applications for strike out. 

European Union – Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that the second indent of art 3(2) of Directive (EC) 95/46 (on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data) should be interpreted as meaning that the operation of a camera system, as a result of which a video recording of people was stored on a continuous recording device such as a hard disk drive, installed by an individual on his family home for the purposes of protecting the property, health and life of the home owners, but which also monitored a public space, did not amount to the processing of data in the course of a purely personal or household activity, for the purposes of that provision.