Latest Cases

Local authority – Statutory powers. The applicant for judicial review (J) had been assessed by the respondent local authority as being a child in need for the purposes of s 17 of the Children Act 1989. The family were fairground travellers and part of the Gypsy community. J was provided with nursery services as part of his child in need plan. The authority told the family that the services could not 'travel' with them. J's application for judicial review of that decision was successful. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the authority's appeal and held that, on a purposive construction of s 17 of the Act, a local authority had the power to provide services for a child in need who they had assessed, regardless of the circumstances which had led to that child being no longer physically present in the area of that local authority. 

European Union – Public service contract. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Alfastar Benelux SA (Alfastar) for annulment of the decision of the European Council not to select the tender submitted by Alfastar response to the restricted call for tenders UCA 218/07, for the provision of technical maintenance and help desk and on-site intervention services for the PCs, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council and to award the contract to another tenderer. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. As a preliminary issue in a libel action brought by a member of the Royal Family of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Queen's Bench Division determined the meaning of the words complained of. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant was granted permission to seek judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision 15 months after she had made another decision, granting the claimant discretionary leave to remain for 30 months. The claimant sought permission to amend the application to go forward on the basis that the discretionary leave to remain decision was the decision under challenge. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the case was not arguable and it was substantially out of time. Further, permission had been granted on a completely false basis, which had been unexplained. 

Family proceedings – Evidence. During the course of care proceedings the Family Division considered what further assessment, if any, there should be of the father, in circumstances where the father, who lived in Somaliland, wished to care for the children himself. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office had advised against travel to Somaliland and the court held that it would not be appropriate for the court to authorise an independent social worker travelling to the region to assess the father. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant bus and coach company sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision to serve a breach of condition notice, alleging a failure to comply with a condition of the planning permission, requiring that no repairs or maintenance of vehicles, or other industrial or commercial activities take place outside specified hours. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the words 'industrial or commercial activities' included the activity of starting a bus or coach in readiness for its departure from the depot and that the authority had been aware that buses and coaches had a 'warm up' time. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The claimants had applied to commit the first defendant to prison for contempt of court. The application was heard at the same time as the trial of the main action and the defendant was unrepresented. The judge rejected the allegations of contempt advanced by the claimants, but found two other contempts proved. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge's decision could not stand where the defendant had not been informed, prior to judgment, of the allegations of contempt which had been found proved, he had not been told of his right not to give evidence, nor had he known of his entitlement to legal aid. The court reiterated its concerns regarding the quality and length of some skeleton arguments. 

Immigration – Asylum. The appellant was a national of Belarus, whose principal claim to remain in the United Kingdom was based on his allegation that he had a well-founded fear of persecution if he were to be returned to Belarus, on account of his political opinions and activities there some 15 years ago. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (FTT) dismissed his claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that there had been no error of law in the way in which the FTT had approached its task or in its reasoning or conclusions. 

Prison – Prisoners. The claimant was serving a life sentence for offences including two murders committed with the presence of children in the vicinity. He challenged the imposition of safeguarding children measures. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that it was not a proper decision, on the facts of the case, to find that the level of risk that the claimant presented to children was such that it had been appropriate or necessary to impose safeguarding children measures. 

Costs – Summary assessment of costs. In a costs application for summary assessment, where the interested party had failed to comply with the practice direction, the claimant submitted that the sanction for late failure to comply should be no costs. The Technology and Construction Court held that there was no sanction specified in CPR PD 44 and in any event having decided that in principle that the interested party should have its reasonable costs. To punish the interested party for its failure in effect to the tune of some £40,000 would be wholly disproportionate.