Latest Cases

Land – Valuation. The claimant company brought proceedings against the defendant company for loss of earnings following an allegedly negligent valuation of land. The Chancery Division considered a number of preliminary issues and held, among other things, that the defendant had owed the claimant a duty of care in both contract and tort. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of two years, one month and five days' imprisonment for wounding. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that it would be disproportionate to order his extradition to Poland to serve so short a period imposed, even for the very serious offence, given his time spent on tagged curfew, his work and behaviour in the United Kingdom. 

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. The appellant was placed on the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults lists. The Administrative Court, in granting an application for judicial review of the Upper Tribunal's (Administrative Appeals Chamber) (UT) initial decision not to grant permission to appeal, held that the failure by the First Tier Tribunal (Health Education and Social Care Chamber) to consider the evidence of a witness was a serious procedural irregularity. The matter was remitted to the UT which dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the UT had been bound by the finding of the Administrative Court and remitted the matter for reconsideration. 

Housing – Local authority houses. The claimant was social tenant of the defendant local authority. He was evicted and his possessions disposed of. In the end the claimant brought claims for reinstatement and for substantial damages for his unlawful eviction due to alleged non-compliance with CCR 26(5)(1)(a), unlawful homelessness and for the unlawful destruction of his possessions based on the torts of conspiracy, interference with goods, negligence and misfeasance in public office, breaches of the terms of his contractual tenancy and pursuant to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Queen's Bench Division held that such claims had been made out and the claimant was entitled to damages. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against an order for his extradition to Poland to serve three years and two months' imprisonment for battery, criminal damage and driving with excess alcohol. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that extradition should be refused, as it would infringe the appellant's right to respect for his family life and, more importantly, the family life of his wife and children, if the extradition order were to be upheld. 

Criminal law – Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed an appeal against conviction where the trial judge had refused to stay the proceedings in circumstances where the defendant had already been convicted and sentenced for lesser offences arising out of the same facts. The court held that there had been special circumstances which required that the prosecution continued. An appeal against sentence was allowed. 

Trinidad and Tobago – Constitutional Law. The applicant police constable sat an exam for promotion to the rank of sergeant. He was told that he had passed the exam, but he was not promoted. He sought to persuade the respondent Police Service Commission of Trinidad and Tobago that he should be exempted from being required to take an exam for promotion to the rank of corporal. The Privy Council, in dismissing the applicant's application for judicial review, held that to allow the application would run counter to the basic structure of the promotion scheme. 

Negligence – Traffic signal. The proceedings concerned an appeal as to liability and quantum against the dismissal of a claim in negligence, in respect of a road traffic collision, on the basis of, inter alia, a finding that the coincidence of location fallacy applied. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the claimant's appeal as to liability, held that the claimant's case had not rested on the coincidence of location argument and liability would be apportioned 50:50. The appeal as to quantum would be dismissed. 

Easement – Right of way. The claimants and defendants were neighbours engaged in a dispute concerning the claimants' rights to open and close gates over their driveway, which, the defendants contended, constituted a trespass over the defendant's land, unless the claimants had a right to do so. The Chancery Division held that, while a right to occupy airspace by hanging a gate over the land forming a driveway was capable of being an easement, the claimants were not entitled to a declaration that they were entitled to an easement permitting the opening and closing of the gates at all times and for all purposes. The claimants had a right to close and open the gates for all purposes connected with the reasonable enjoyment of their property provided such use did not substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the defendants' property. 

Option – Option to purchase. The claimant issued proceedings seeking specific performance of an option in an agreement which entitled him to purchase a property or sell it to a third party and keep the proceeds of sale above a certain sum. The party with whom the agreement had been made was deceased and the administrators defended the claim on the ground that the agreement was invalid. The Chancery Division held that, on account of an oral pre-condition to the option, the option had not been valid, nor was the agreement valid as the provisions of s 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 had not been complied with. Finally, the agreement had been entered into as a result of undue influence and so it had been voidable and had, in fact, been avoided for the claimant's non-compliance with its terms.