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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Company – Winding up. The Supreme Court of Bermuda made an order winding up a company, SICL. SICL's former auditors, PwC, applied for the order to be lifted. The liquidators of SCIL challenged, among other things, PwC's entitlement to do so. The Privy Council allowed PwC's application, and held that, among other things, since PwC had the right to be added as a party to the petition, it followed that, unless there were good reasons to the contrary, it was entitled to raise the question whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to make the winding up order, but also to raise the issue on appeal. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. In a public procurement case relating to a proposed single supplier framework agreement for media planning and buying services, the claimant, as the losing tenderer issued proceedings within 30 days of being informed of its failure to win contract, under the Public Contract Regulations. That led to a suspension on the placing of the contract with the successful tenderer. The defendant as contracting authority applied to lift the statutory suspension so that it could place the contract with the successful tenderer. The Technology and Construction Court lifted the suspension as it found that there was no serious issue to be tried.