Latest Cases

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The claimants came before the court with a libel action in respect of a press release issued by the defendant police force in which the headline was 'Three jailed for murder of [the victim]'and in which the claimants were mentioned in the body of the text. It was the claimants case that the words meant that each was involved with four others in the murder of [the victim] and imprisoned for such. The Queen's Bench Division held that no such meaning could be attributed to the words and further the meaning of the words complained of was that the claimants were each jailed for a total of six years' imprisonment for offences of grievous bodily harm and false imprisonment, committed in the course of their involvement in the lead-up to the murder of the victim. 

Contract – Breach. The parties were involved in the construction of seats for trains. The defendant company agreed to purchase the goods and materials for the seats and supply them to a third party for the seats to be constructed. The claimant company brought a claim for unpaid invoices. The Queen's Bench Division made a number of findings about, among other things, the amounts recoverable on individual invoices. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Following the father's acquittal of grevious bodily harm of his youngest child, the local authority brought care proceedings in respect of the child and the three other children of the family. There was a fact finding hearing in which the Family Division found that he criteria under s 31 of the Children's Act 1989 had been in respect of all four children, and particularly so in respect of the youngest and oldest child. 

Defamation – Libel. The claimant brought an action against the defendant in libel following the uploading of a video onto the internet. by the defendant regarding the safety of a pony sold by the claimant to the defendant for the purposes of children. The Queens Bench Division held, inter alia, that there had been a defamatory allegation of fact. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The appellant, G, acquired a loan from the respondent company, BMS. BMS brought proceedings when he defaulted on the loan. The deputy master awarded summary judgment to BMS. The Chancery Division dismissed G's appeal and refused permission for him to adduce further evidence. 

Value added tax – Exemptions. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, concerning whether the exemption from VAT conferred by United Kingdom primary legislation in respect of the supply of regulated access services by Royal Mail, as a designated provider of universal postal services, was consistent with European Union law. The Administrative Court held that, following the judgment in R (on the application of TNT Post UK Ltd) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners: C-357/07 ([2009] All ER (D) 175 (Apr)), the UK had amended the relevant VAT legislation in a way that had been compatible with EU law and the current UK VAT exemption was likewise compatible with EU law. 

Tort – Harassment. The Queen's Bench Division granted interim injunctions in harassment to claimants who were all casework managers in the Independent Police Complaints Commission and had been the subject of allegations made largely on the internet by the two defendants. The court held, amongst other things, that the claimants were each likely to establish at trial that publication should not be allowed. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In care proceedings concerning an eight-month-old child, the Family Court held that, in all the circumstances, the father had to be given parental responsibility for the child and that an interim care order would be continued so that the authority could pursue the plan with vigour. 

Constitutional law – Crown dependency. The Administrative Court made a declaration that the decision of the Standing Committee of the Privy Council for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey, which had recommended the approval of the passing of a law in Sark, had been an unlawful decision in that, in certain respects, it was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court held that, as a general proposition, the courts of the United Kingdom did have jurisdiction judicially to review an Order in Council which was made on the advice of the UK government, but that, in the present case, the court should not have exercised that jurisdiction. 

Local authority – Transport. The claimant adults with severe disabilities sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to cease providing directly a transportation service for eligible adults living in its area to enable them to attend adult day centres. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority had not breached its statutory duty, under s 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Further, the consultation had been fair and the authority had complied with its public sector equality duty.