Latest Cases

Consumer credit – Extortionate credit bargain. In proceedings concerning the non-disclosure of commission payments in respect of single payment protection insurance premiums (PPI), the Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal of the defendant credit company, held that Harrison v Black Horse Ltd[2011] All ER (D) 112 (Oct) had been wrongly decided and that the non-disclosure of commissions payable out of the claimant's PPI premium had made her relationship with the defendant unfair. Consideration was given to s 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Commercial Court granted the claimant, Toyota Tsusho Sugar Trading Ltd, a declaration that an English arbitration tribunal had substantive jurisdiction over any dispute between Toyota and the defendant, arising out of or in connection with a contract for the sale of sugar by Toyota to the defendant. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. In a case where the mother and father and child, M, moved to Israel, the court had to decide on M's place of habitual residence. The Family Division held that it was plain to see that M was unable to settle and integrate into Israeli life and it would be wholly inimical to M's best interest to return to Israel. 

Solicitor – Merger of firms of solicitors. The claimant solicitors' firm sought judicial review of the defendant Legal Ombudsman's decision that it was responsible for a complaint made against another firm, as its successor. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant was 'an authorised person', under s 128(1) of the Legal Services Act 2007, over which the Legal Ombudsman had jurisdiction. That was on the basis that 'person', under s 132(2) of the Act, was not limited to an individual human being. Accordingly, the claimant, due to the transfer of the other firm's business, was the proper respondent to the complaint.