Latest Cases

Practice – Civil litigation. The main proceedings concerned the sale and disposal of the interests of the claimants and others in shares in one or more corporate entities which owned a football club, to purchasers connected with a well-known businessmen Bernie Ecclestone and another individual. The defendants had been retained and instructed by the claimants and others in relation to the transaction. The claimants sought relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 in respect of its failure to serve notice on the defendants of the existence of funding arrangements. The Chancery Division, in allowing the application, held that, despite the need to encourage compliance, it was not just to withhold relief from sanction in the circumstances of the case. 

Police – Complaint against police. The proceedings concerned an appeal against a ruling that the powers of the defendant Independent Police Complaints Commission, when reporting on a 'special requirements' investigation of a compliant about a police officer's conduct, were confined to stating whether the officer had a case to answer in misconduct proceedings and did not extend to expressing findings on the reasonableness and/or legality of the officer's conduct. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that, in a 'special requirements' investigation, it was beyond the powers of the investigators to purport, themselves, to decide the merits of a case that they considered had called for an answer. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for the erection of two detached industrial buildings, which it acknowledged would cause harm to heritage assets. The Planning Court dismissed all but one of the claimant's grounds of challenge. However, it postponed making any final order until after the Secretary of State had had a reasonable period of time to consider whether he would wish to call the application in for decision by him. 

Adjudication – Award. The claimant engaged the first named defendant to carry out works at his flat. The defendant referred a dispute over alleged unpaid fees for work done to adjudication. The adjudicator found in favour of the claimant that the sum claimed by the defendant was not due to it. However, he further found that he had no jurisdiction to award a net sum to the claimant as claimed in accounts submitted after the adjudication had started. The claimant applied for summary judgment, contending for the sum claimed in his accounts. The Technology and Construction Court held that the adjudicator had been right to determine that he had no jurisdiction to award a net sum to the claimant and he was not entitled to summary judgment on that sum. 

Infant – Care. The proceedings concerned an application by the local authority for anticipatory declaratory relief sanctioning a birth plan in respect of a vulnerable adult. Following an adjournment, the authority sought permission to withdraw its application. The Family Division, in granting the authority permission to withdraw its application, held that it had not been persuaded of the necessity for, or proportionality of, the relief sought. 

Criminal law – Child sex offences. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, refused an application by the Attorney General to refer a sentence as being unduly lenient pursuant to s 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The offender had been convicted of the rape of a child under 13 contrary to s 5(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. The rape had occurred when the offender's seven year old daughter had got into the offender's bed in the night and the offender claimed to remember nothing of the incident. The court noted the unusual circumstances of the case and held, amongst other things, that the judge had not downplayed, or not unreasonably downplayed, the relationship of father and child. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The two appellants appealed against the dismissal of a judicial review claim and refusal of permission for judicial review, respectively, in relation to decisions of the Secretary of State to grant them limited discretionary leave to remain, as opposed to indefinite leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing both appeals, held that there had been no material illegality in the decisions. 

Account – Action for. The claimants appealed against an order, made on the taking of accounts between the parties, ordering payment to the defendants of the balance found to be due. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimants' appeal, rejected the claimants' criticisms of the defendants' accounting and the master's findings, and held that the master had been fully entitled to draw the factual inferences that she had from the evidence before her and to have concluded that the claimants' disclosure had been inadequate. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Slovakia to stand trial for minor theft and minor property damage, relying on art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and alleging that the judge had erred in finding that to discharge him would be 'endorsing his behaviour'. The Administrative Court held that the judge had taken account of a factor which had been no proper part of the balancing exercise. Approaching the balancing exercise afresh, the hardship to the appellant and his family was not such as to overcome the public interest in extradition. 

Estoppel – Conduct. The parties had been in a relationship and had lived together in a house bought by the defendant for that purpose. When the relationship ended, the claimant issued proceedings contending that the property had been held for the benefit of both of them in equal shares. The judge upheld the claimant's claim to an enforceable equity by operation of proprietary estoppel. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal as the judge had not erred in finding that the defendant had made representations to the claimant, on which she had relied and acted to her detriment, regarding the provision to her of a home for life.