Latest Cases

Human Rights – Right to fair trial. The applicant complained that the presence of retired and serving police officers on the jury, which had convicted him of murder, violated his right to a fair trial, as provided in art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights, in dismissing the application, held that there was no evidence of actual partiality on the part of either the retired or the serving officer during the trial. Having regard to all the considerations, the safeguards present at the applicant's trial had been sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the jury which had tried the applicant's case. 

Road traffic – Stage carriage. The claimant wheelchair user had issued proceedings alleging unlawful discrimination on grounds of disability against the defendant bus company as he had been unable to board a bus due to the wheelchair space being occupied by a woman with a pram who had refused to move when requested to do so by the driver. The recorder found that the defendant's policy was a 'provision criterion or practice' (PCP) which had placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage by comparison with non-disabled bus passengers and there had been reasonable adjustments that the defendant could have made. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal. The revised PCP proposed by the recorder, which would have required compelling non-disabled passengers to move from the wheelchair space or be removed from the bus, had been neither practical nor effective. 

Arbitration – Stay of court proceedings. The claimant company appealed against a decision to stay its petition for the winding up of the defendant company. The debt on which the petition was based arose out of a lease which contained an arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the debt mentioned in the petition fell within the very wide terms of the arbitration clause in the lease and triggered the automatic stay provision in s 9(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996. 

Town and Country Planning – Development. By an application, under s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the claimant sought to quash a decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to allow an appeal against the decision of the second defendant local authority, and to grant planning permission to extend a motor repair garage and retrospectively to extend rear parking. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held, inter alia, that the inspector's conclusion that the increase in activity at the rear area of the site had not been material had not arguably been outside the range of legitimate conclusions to which she had been entitled to have come. 

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 issued by the second respondent local planning authority, alleging that she had erected a dwelling without planning permission. The Planning Court, in allowing the appeal in part, held that the inspector's decision letter had failed to grapple with the question of what operations had been carried out. However, he had not erred by failing to consider whether some steps short of complete demolition would suffice to remedy the breach of planning control. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application brought by Inter-Union Technohandel GmbH (Inter-Union) for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Inter-Union and Gumersport Mediterranea de Distribuciones, SL (Gumersport) regarding the application by Gumersport for registration of a figurative sign depicting the word 'PROFLEX' as a Community trade mark. 

Town and country planning – Appeal to Minister against refusal of permission for development. The claimant applied to quash the decision of the first defendant Secretary of State to dismiss the claimant's appeal against refusal by the second defendant local planning authority of planning permission for a wind farm. The Secretary of State had recovered the appeal to himself and disagreed with the conclusions of the inspector he had appointed. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the standard of reasons required in a recovered appeal where the Secretary of State disagreed with his appointed inspector was the standard in accordance with well-established authority, applied as appropriate to the particular case. On that basis, the Secretary of State's reasons had been proper, adequate and intelligible. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employee's appeal against the refusal of the employment tribunal to strike out the employer's response to the employee's complaints on the basis of non-compliance with an order in respect of the exchange of witness statements. The EAT decided that in the present case, the tribunal judge had correctly applied the principles and authorities and there had been no error of law in the judge's approach to his exercise of discretion. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The parents, who were divorced, originated from Algeria but lived in the United Kingdom. The applicant mother applied to the Family Division for permission to take her children to Algeria. The court held that it was not in the interest of the children to allow the application. 

Practice – Family proceedings. The Family Division adjourned a hearing in respect of financial matters and required the parties to return to court with a single composite bundle of documents, in circumstances where the relevant practice directions had not been complied with.