Latest Cases

Loan – Recovery. The claimants brought proceedings, seeking to recover a loan that they claimed to have made to the defendants to allow them to purchase a farmhouse. The Chancery Division held that the relevant loan and charge deeds had been validly made, and that the defendants could not deny that the loan was recoverable. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division made an order for an interim care order and an order under s 37 of the Children Act 1989 in respect of a seven year-old boy, where there were very real dangers that his emotional safety would be significantly at risk if the court did not remove him from his half-sister's home immediately. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee was dismissed for gross misconduct for slapping a patient. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) found that the employee had been unfairly dismissed and that there should be no Polkey deduction. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, held that, applying settled law to the facts, the tribunal had erred in law and its decision could not stand. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The Chancery Division considered two cases of alleged solicitors' negligence arising out of the 'Right to Buy' litigation. In both cases, the defendant solicitors applied for orders striking out the cases on the grounds that the claim forms had not been served in time. The court held that, in the first case, the stay of proceedings would be lifted and the claim deemed as having lapsed. In the second case, there had been no valid stay imposed, and so the claim would also be deemed as having lapsed. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant applied for the quashing of the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to dismiss his appeal against the decision of the second defendant local planning authority to refuse planning permission for a proposed development of eight dwellings. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that, contrary to the claimant's submission, the inspector had considered that the planning permission granted in respect of another site had been immaterial and he had been entitled to have come to that conclusion. 

Crown Court – Sentence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, amended the defendant's sentence in circumstances where the judge had imposed a sentence which did not comply with the requirements of the relevant legislation. 

Practice – Striking out. The claimant company, RP, brought proceedings against the defendant, C, alleging deceit and misrepresentation. It subsequently discontinued those allegations. RP later brought a second claim against C, in which it alleged deceit and misrepresentation. The Commercial Court, in dismissing C's application to strike out the particulars of claim, held that there had been no abuse of process by RP. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following the substantive judgment on the parties' dispute, the Administrative Court determined the costs of two claims. With respect to the first claim, it held that it would not be right to disallow any part of the defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners' (the Revenue) costs, but its costs in respect of appearing at the permission hearing would be excluded and the interested party was not entitled to its costs. With respect to the second claim, the claimant should have 30% of its costs as against the Revenue, as although it had succeeded, its claim had been misconceived and had failed in its objective. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Nigerian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to certify his asylum and human rights claims as clearly unfounded. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that whether the no realistic prospect of success or the clearly unfounded test had been used, the conclusion would inevitably have been the same. Further, nothing in the Secretary of State's decision letter indicated that she had failed to have regard to the claimant's medical evidence of his severe depression and suicide risk. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. In considering appeals regarding alleged breaches of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of delays towards post-tariff release of prisoners serving life or indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPP), the Supreme Court accepted the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights conclusion in (James v United Kingdom (Application Nos 25119/09, 57715/09 and 57877/09) (2012)33 BHRC 617 that the purpose of the sentence included rehabilitation in relation to prisoners subject to life and IPP sentences in respect of whom shorter tariff periods had been set. The Supreme Court further accepted as implicit in the scheme of art 5 that the state was under a duty to provide an opportunity, reasonable in all the circumstances, for such a prisoner to rehabilitate himself and to demonstrate that he no longer presented an unacceptable danger to the public. A duty to facilitate release could and should be implied as an ancillary duty - a duty not affecting the lawfulness of the detention, but sounding in damages if breached.