Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The proceedings concerned the father's private law application in relation to his daughter. The judge had found that the English court had had jurisdiction to hear the proceedings in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility) (Brussels II Revised). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the mother's appeal. The judge's order declaring and ordering that the court had jurisdiction had to be set aside and, in its place, it was declared that, in accordance with Brussels II Revised, the English court did not have jurisdiction to determine the father's application. 

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. 

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. 

Costs – Third party. The applicants' convictions for summary offences, pursuant to s 297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, were quashed and they sought a third party costs order against the second interested party, the Football Association Premier League (FAPL). The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the there was nothing exceptional about the case and it should remain subject to the criminal costs regime. Although FAPL stood to benefit financially from a successful prosecution, a broader consideration did not suggest that a third party costs order would be just in all the circumstances. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant local authority to grant planning permission and conservation area consent to redevelop a site within a conservation area. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the planning officer's report had not applied the statutory presumption against the grant of permission in conservation area cases, laid down by s 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 

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. 

Legal aid – Entitlement. The claimants had been refused civil legal aid funding in cases that involved immigration issues. Their judicial review challenges had been successful. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had erred in his interpretation of when exceptional case funding was required by s 10(3)(a) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. It further affirmed the judge's conclusions that the second defendant Lord Chancellor's Exceptional Funding Guidance (Non-Inquests) was not compatible with arts 6(1) and, in immigration cases, art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, nor was it compatible with art 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.