Latest Cases

Professional misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings. As a result of allegations that the appellant pharmacist had been supplying prescription-only medication without a prescription and unlawfully, the respondent General Pharmaceutical Council's (GPC) Fitness to Practise Committee (FPC) suspended him. The appellant appealed, contending, inter alia, that the imposition of conditions on the appellant's registration would be sufficient to safeguard the public safety and the public interest. The GPC applied to extend the suspension for a further period. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal and allowing the application to extend the suspension, held that the FPC had correctly determined that the suspension was necessary, and that the imposition of conditions would not be an appropriate and proportionate order. 

Damages – Personal injury. The judge awarded the claimant damages for personal injuries arising out of a road traffic accident in which he was seriously injured. In particular, he considered the fact that the claimant had passed the United Kingdom citizenship test (the UKCT) without assistance in his findings on the claimant's significant cognitive deficits. The second defendant appealed and the claimant cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considering the UKCT pass in context with all the other evidence and in its proper place, dismissed the appeals. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the Framework Agreement on part-time work, which was annexed to Council Directive (EC) 1997/81 (concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC), in particular cl 5.2 thereof, should be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, it did not preclude national legislation pursuant to which the employer could order the conversion of a part-time employment relationship into a full-time employment relationship without the consent of the worker concerned. 

European Union – Taxation. The present proceedings between Mr Nicula and the Romanian Office of Public Finances and the Romanian Environment Fund Office concerned the refusal of those authorities to grant Mr Nicula's application for the repayment of the motor vehicle pollution tax levied in breach of European Union law. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that EU law had to be interpreted as precluding a system of repayment of a tax levied in breach of EU law such as the system at issue in the main proceedings. 

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. 

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. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The claimant issued two applications to commit the defendant for contempt of court, alleging that he had breached the terms of an injunction. The defendant sought the striking out of the applications as an abuse of process. The Queen's Bench Division held that none of the defendant's allegations of abuse should result in the court declining to hear the claimant's applications. There could be no doubt that the defendant's course of conduct had constituted serious and sustained breaches of the injunction and a term of imprisonment for seven months, suspended for two years was imposed, given the defendant's mental health issues. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national appealed against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) that it had jurisdiction to deal with his application for permission for judicial review and refusing permission. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the claimant's objection to the jurisdiction of the UT had been and was well-founded. The decisions being challenged had been the rejection of his claim under the legacy scheme, which had not fallen within Practice Direction (Upper Tribunal: Judicial Review Jurisdiction). 

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant company was the owner of a hot strip steel mill. It had sourced the parts required to assemble the mill and had and permitted a company (the company) to install it at a site. The company went into administration and the claimant contended that the sale of the site and the mill by the administrators of the company was a breach of an agreement the claimant had with the company, which the defendant purchasers of the site had allegedly knowingly procured. The Chancery Division held that the claim for breach had been established in respect of the first defendant.