Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant was seriously injured through the defendant's admitted negligence in a road traffic accident in April 2012. A master ordered an interim payment of £500,000 to be paid to the claimant. The defendant appealed by way of challenge to the issues of contributory negligence and accommodation costs. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the appeal as the decision of the master could not be faulted. 

Judicial review – Availability of remedy. The first defendant Transport for London (TfL) decided not to allow the claimant Christian organisation's advertisement to appear on its buses on the basis that it was contrary to its advertising policy. The claimant sought judicial review on the basis that the decision had been made for the improper purpose of advancing the second defendant Mayor's electoral campaign. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the decision had been made by TfL, although strongly influenced by the Mayor's views and wishes. However, the Mayor had not been motivated by the improper purpose of advancing his election campaign. 

Town and country planning – Development. The claimants, C and D, owned a farm, which D ran single-handedly at a loss. They wished to develop the farm's dwelling, which was built on condition that its occupation was permitted to persons employed in agriculture and their dependants. The inspector, appointed by the second defendant Secretary of State, refused the claimants' application for a lawful development certificate, as C and the children were not D's dependants. The claimants sought judicial review. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the term 'dependants' envisaged dependency in a wider way than one requiring financial dependency. 

Income tax – Annual payment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) ruled on issues arising out of the taxpayer's appeal against the rejection by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners of his claim for a deduction from his total income in respect of certain payments relating to loan notes. Amongst other things, the tribunal accepted the argument put forward by the Revenue that, applying the Ramsay principle, the payments at issue did not fall within s 349 (1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 with the result that the taxpayer was not entitled to deduct those payments in computing his income for tax purposes. 

Contract – Discharge. The claimant company was in the business was that of the buying and selling of jewellery. The defendant was a general medical practitioner and practised as such in London. However, he was also a trader in wholesale gold jewellery. The defendant purchased two separate quantities of jewellery. The claimant brought an action alleging that the defendant failed to return they jewellery despite the claimant refunding the money as allegedly requested. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claim, preferring the evidence of the defendant. 

Equity – Breach of confidence. The defendant worked for the claimant company as a managing director. He was dismissed at a meeting in December 2012. On the day of the dismissal, after the meeting, he forwarded company documents to his personal email account and went home. The company brought proceedings for breach of confidence. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the defendant had not behaved improperly, and the claim would be dismissed. 

Employment – Remuneration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that, contrary to what the employment tribunal had decided, the document sent to the employees by the employer local authority regarding the change in their pay was capable of being a contractual document which, unless vitiated by obvious mistake, had expressed terms and conditions which had been acted on and accepted by the employees to whom it had been addressed. Accordingly, the employees' appeal against the tribunal's rejection of their claim for unauthorised deduction from wages would be allowed and the matter would be remitted to a fresh tribunal to consider whether mistake had vitiated the contractual effect which the document would otherwise have had. 

Prison – Release on licence. The claimant was released on licence, following a term of imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving, subject to the condition that he was prevented from entering his home town and his family home. The claimant wished to visit his family home to provide care for his grandparents and sought judicial review of the condition. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that to exclude the claimant from visiting his family home would be an unjustified interference with his rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Action – Immunity from suit. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for false imprisonment and harassment. The judge found that the defendant's complaint to the police, resulting in the claimant's arrest, was protected by witness immunity from suit and, further, struck out the harassment claim. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, gave guidance on the scope of the witness immunity rule and held that it had applied to the defendant's complaints to the police. The remaining text messages relied on to establish harassment, even if constituting a course of conduct, were simply not capable of being seen as harassment. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought a declaration that the Secretary of State's delay in deciding his application for leave to remain was unlawful, including contrary to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Administrative Court held that the Secretary of State had been in breach of her duties under s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 for failing to put in place arrangements to safeguard the welfare of non-applicant children in the United Kingdom of an adult applicant. However, the Secretary of State's delay had not caused the claimant detriment or prejudice.