Latest Cases

Criminal evidence and procedure – Rape – Distress. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal against a conviction for rape, the court held that the evidence of the complainer's distress was capable of supporting her account and that the trial judge gave adequate directions to the jury, both on the question of sufficiency of evidence and the significance of distress in that context. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. The claimant was awarded £5,500 in general damages. She suffered a soft tissue injury to her cervical spine which exacerbated a pre-existing injury. The claimant suffered from severe pain down her neck, radiating to the elbow, for approximately one month. She had pins and needles for six weeks. She also suffered from travel anxiety. The claimant's soft tissue injury to her cervical spine resolved within two years post-accident. The claimant's fear of travel resolved within 12 months. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant local planning authority applied for an order to quash the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, allowing the second defendant's appeal against the claimant's refusal of planning permission and granting planning permission for 94 dwellings. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had dealt with, and had given adequate reasons for rejecting, the claimant's central argument. He had not erred in failing to exclude housing development from his assessment of sustainable development, and had considered arts 12 and 16 of the Council Directive (EEC) 92/43. 

European Union – Medicinal products. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Directive (EC) 2001/83 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use), as amended. The request had been made in proceedings between Olainfarm AS (Olainfarm) and the Latvian Ministry of Health and another, concerning the latter's decision to grant to Grindeks AS a marketing authorisation (MA) for a generic of a reference medicinal product for which Olainfarm held a MA. 

Education – Special educational needs. The claimant was the mother of a child who had special educational needs (SEN). The local authority, in drawing up a new SEN statement, named a school which was not the claimant's preferred choice. The claimant appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, which ordered the SEN statement to name the claimant's preferred school. The defendant Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) rejected the claimant's complaint that the authority had failed to provide her child with any education between November 2007 and June 2008. Her application for judicial review was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, rejected the argument that the LGO had jurisdiction to investigate the consequences of a decision, if investigation of the decision itself was excluded by s 26(6) of the Local Government Act 1974. 

Winding up – Liquidator. In the course of the liquidation of the Comet group, the claimant liquidators made an application for disclosure. In allowing the application, the Companies Court held that the benefit likely to be gained by the liquidators as a result of making the order substantially outweighed the burden likely to be imposed on the respondent companies. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 3(5) of, and points (b) and (c) of Annex A to, Directive (EC) 2003/54 of the European Parliament and of the Council (concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity), and art 3(3) of, and points (b) and (c) of Annex A to, Directive (EC) 2003/55 of the European Parliament and of the Council (concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas). The requests had been made in two sets of proceedings, respectively between Ms Schulz and Technische Werke Schussental GmbH und Co. KG (TWS) and between Mr Egbringhoff and Stadtwerke Ahaus GmbH (SA) concerning the use, by TWS and SA respectively, of allegedly unlawful clauses in consumer contracts covered by a universal supply obligation. 

Employment – 'Worker'. The employment tribunal found that, when the appellant was providing her services through a limited company for the purpose of selling Shiseido cosmetic products in a duty free outlet managed by the respondent, she was not an employee of the respondent for the purposes of s 83(2) of the Equality Act 2010. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the existence of an employment relationship did not turn on whether the parties had entered into a formal contract, which would be recognised in domestic law as having constituted employment, but on whether it met the criteria which had been laid down by European law. Applying those criteria, the appellant was not an employee of the respondent. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against a confiscation order, held that funds and credits paid into the defendant's bank account by a friend, whom he had allowed to use the account, had fallen squarely within the benefit provisions of s 76(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. 

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. Proceedings for judicial review of the defendant local authority's council tax reduction scheme, on the basis that the consultation had been unfair, were dismissed at first instance and on appeal. The Supreme Court, in allowing the claimant's appeal, considered the scope of a public authority's duty to consult. It found that the authority's consultation had been unfair, as it had not referred to other ways of absorbing the shortfall in council tax and those other options had not been obvious. However, it would not be proportionate to order the authority to undertake a fresh consultation exercise.