Latest Cases

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. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimants challenged the defendant local planning authority's grant of outline planning permission and conservation area consent for redevelopment of a retail centre. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimants had not suffered any prejudice from non-disclosure of a viability report, nor had the authority's committee been misled or not given proper information. Further, nothing required a review mechanism to ensure a maximum of affordable housing and a sequential test to planning applications was not required. 

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. 

Trust and trustee – Removal of trustee. The proceedings concerned the administration of an estate. The claimant, who was the beneficiary of the trust affecting the estate, brought proceedings against the trustees. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, it would be appropriate to replace one of the trustees, and for the trustees to pay compensation for failure to achieve the repair and re-letting of a house and to take steps to obtain possession of a cottage on the estate. 

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. 

Legal aid – Entitlement. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Director of Legal Aid Casework's refusal to provide legal aid funding for her intended false imprisonment claim against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that para 21(4) of Sch 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, was a comprehensive definition of abuse of position or power and that only the claimant's arrest needed to be shown to have been deliberate or dishonest. Accordingly, the proposed claim for civil legal aid fell within the provisions of para 21 of Sch 1 to the Act. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.