Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, seeking to quash the planning permission granted by the defendant minerals planning authority to a company for temporary permission for exploration and appraisal concerning an existing hydrocarbon lateral borehole. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority had determined the merits after a full discussion and a thorough exploration of the issues raised. The claimant's case failed, as its legal arguments neither addressed nor reflected the relevant principles and the authority had not been misled. 

Design – Design right. The claimant company, DKH, made clothing. It brought proceedings against the defendant company, H Young, contending that it had infringed DKH's rights by the importation and sale of a particular style of gilet. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that, among other things, DKH's design was not commonplace, and H Young's gilet infringed DKH's designs. 

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. 

Prison – Prisoner. The claimant, a prisoner serving an indefinite sentence for the protection of the public, sought judicial review of the lawfulness of a prison service instruction (the PSI), in particular, the restrictions on prisoners' receipt or use of books. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there was no good reason, in the light of the importance of books to prisoners, to restrict possession beyond what was required by volumetric control and reasonable measures relating to the frequency of parcels and security considerations. Accordingly, insofar as it included books in the Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme, the PSI was unlawful. 

Discrimination – Discrimination. The employee had succeeded in his claim for unlawful age discrimination before the employment tribunal and had received an award for injury to feelings and awards in respect of holiday pay, including an award in respect of holidays to which the employee, as a worker, had been entitled but which he had not taken (holiday pay 3). The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employer's appeal against holiday pay 3 and the employee's appeal against the amount of the award made in respect of injury to feelings. 

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. 

Building contract – Adjudication. A dispute arose between the claimant contractor and the defendant employer in respect of the claimant's application for interim payment for work done under a building contract. The claimant sought summary judgment to enforce a decision in its favour in an adjudication and for a declaration that the adjudicator in a second adjudication, brought by the defendant, lacked jurisdiction. The Technology and Construction Court, in granting summary judgment, held that the claimant was entitled to a declaration that the decision in the second adjudication was invalid for want of jurisdiction where the question in issue had to be taken to have been decided in the first adjudication 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In the course of group litigation connected to the supply of *** implants, an application was made for declarations against a number of additional parties. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application, on the ground that it had been designed to establish how much money was available from another party. That was not a matter for case management. 

Conflict of laws – Stay of proceedings. The liquidators of a company appealed a decision in which the court had stayed English Trust proceedings on the basis that the courts of Saudi Arabia were a more appropriate forum. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) reversed the decision on the basis that it was not able to determine the various issues on a stay or summary judgment application. 

Occupier's liability – Common duty of care. The claimant fell on local authority property. She brought an action in negligence and the court found the local authority negligent with the claimant being 50% contributorily negligent. The local authority appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the judge on the basis that is had been reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would fall.