Latest Cases

Local authority – Statutory powers. The claimant's sought judicial review of the failure of the defendant local authority's housing department to comply with the request for assistance from its children's services department, purportedly under s 27 of the Children Act 1989. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that s 27 of the Act did not apply, as on a straightforward reading, the consequences of s 27(2) of the Act did not arise in circumstances in which one department of a London borough requested the help of another department of the same London borough. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2, 6(1) and 16 of Council Directive (EC) 2000/78 (establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation). The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Schmitzer and the Austrian Federal Minister for the Interior concerning the legality of the system for remuneration of public servants adopted by the Austrian legislature with a view to ending age-based discrimination. 

Equity – Breach of confidence. The claimant companies brought an action for breach of confidential information in respect of a former director who had left and set up in competition to the claimants. It was alleged that the former director and his companies were utilising lists of customers which were subject to a confidentiality clause. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claim, and granted the claimants an injunction and a further hearing for damages to be assessed. 

Patent – Infringement of patent. The claimant alleged that the defendant (BT) infringed two of its patents (495 and 790) concerning the methods for controlling the way in which an asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) operated. The alleged infringement related to the system used by BT to monitor and control its ADSL network. The Patents Court held that, applying settled law to the facts, that 790 was valid and was infringed by BT's system and that 495 was valid and was not infringed by BT's systems. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed BT's appeal in respect of 790 where there had been no error by the judge in his construction of the patent or finding of infringement. The claimant's appeal in respect of 495 was allowed as the claim which had resulted in a finding of non-infringement had been invalid, and the remaining claims had been both valid and infringed. 

Immigration – Leave to remain – Fresh claim. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a failed Zimbabwean asylum seeker challenging a decision refusing to treat her further submissions as a fresh claim, the court (the asylum claim having been abandoned), concluded that the decision-maker had not erred in addressing the petitioner's case based on the right to a family and private life. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. MK was a dissident Iranian politician resident in Paris. She had been excluded from the United Kingdom by the Secretary of State, on the advice of the Foreign Office, on the ground that her presence would not be conducive to the public good. The Supreme Court dismissed the claimants' appeal arising from the Secretary of State's decision and held, amongst other things, that to reject the Foreign Office assessment of the risks to national security, public safety and the rights of others would be to step beyond the proper function of a court of review and would involve rejecting by far the strongest and best qualified evidence before it. 

Housing – Homeless person. The claimants were housed with their families in interim accommodation by the defendant local authorities (the authorities). The accommodation was provided pending investigation into whether the authorities owed the claimants a duty under the Housing Act 1996. The authorities decided that the claimants and their families had become intentionally homeless, and required them to leave. The Supreme Court held that the authorities had not been required to obtain court orders before evicting them pursuant to ss 3(1) and 3(2B) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 as contended and, further, that doing so had not violated their rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Judicial review – Competency. Court of Session: Granting a reclaiming motion by the respondents in a petition for judicial review in which the Lord Ordinary had granted the interim orders the petitioner sought in a motion enrolled before service of the petition, the court held that the invocation, by means of a judicial review petition, of the Court of Session's supervisory jurisdiction was not competent where the foundation of the petitioner's case was his contract of employment, and it dismissed the petition as incompetent. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The mother was addicted to drugs and had the child, J, whilst in prison. The local authority brought care proceedings in respect of J and sought a special guardianship order in favour of the paternal grandmother. The mother opposed the making of the order on the basis that she was well and committed to staying clean. The Family Court, in allowing the application, held that J's overwhelming interests required the court to make a special guardianship order in favour of the paternal grandmother. 

Landlord and tenant – Tenancy. The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against a judgement of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, which had upheld an order for possession made against the appellant in circumstances where the appellant's wife, as joint tenant of a secure weekly tenancy, had unilaterally terminated the tenancy. The Court held that the appellant's arguments based on art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention failed.