Latest Cases

Sentencing – Punishment part – Murder. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by the Crown against the punishment part of a life sentence for murder, the court concluded that although, when sentencing the respondent for the murder of his wife by stabbing her the judge, in selecting a punishment part as low as 12 years, undoubtedly imposed a lenient sentence, the punishment part could not be said to be unduly lenient. 

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. 

Housing – Local authority houses. The claimant sought judicial review of defendant local authority's decision that she did not succeed her long-term partner in his secure tenancy because she had not been residing with him in the 12 months before his death, pursuant to s 87 of the Housing Act 1985 (the additional condition). The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the additional condition served the legitimate aim of reliably assessing whether two people were living together as spouses or civil partners. Further, there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. 

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. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employee had previously brought claims against the employer in respect of unlawful deductions. The employee later brought a claim against the employer, alleging that her dismissal had been unfair and by reason of having made public interest disclosures. The employment tribunal regarded the claim as an abuse and struck out those parts of the claim. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, determined that the judge had, inter alia, erred in having placed heavy emphasis on the delay in bringing the claims and had failed to show that he had appreciated the very great difference between the unlawful deduction claims and the more complex, demanding claims involving whistleblowing. 

Coroner – Inquest. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant coroner's decision not to hold an inquest with a jury into the death of his mother. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the coroner had not erred in law by concluding that there had been no evidence before her upon which to found a legitimate suspicion that there had been a systemic failure inherent in the surgical procedure that the claimant's mother had undergone. 

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. 

Disabled person – Discrimination. The claimants were severely disabled people who sought judicial review of the Minister for Disabled People's decision to close the Independent Living Fund. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Minister had had sufficient information to enable him to discharge the public sector equality duty and he had gone about the exercise with the requisite thoroughness, conscientiousness and care. Accordingly, there had been no breach of the public sector equality duty. 

Warrant – Search warrant. The claimant sought judicial review of the first defendant's decision that it had no jurisdiction to entertain his application for the return of items seized under search warrants. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that, as the only route to challenge whether a warrant was lawful was by way of judicial review, the judge had correctly held he had no jurisdiction. Further, the claimant had not made out his case that the searches and seizures had gone beyond the purpose for which the warrants had been issued. 

Employment tribunal – Jurisdiction. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employee's appeal against the striking out by the employment tribunal of both his claims for unfair constructive dismissal and alleged detrimental treatment for having made protected disclosures (the whistle-blowing claim). The EAT decided that the tribunal had correctly struck out both claims.