Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the third defendant's decision to grant consent to permit development, and the first and second defendants' actions in commencing development. He contended that the development was not permitted under the Brighton Marina Act 1968. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, on the proper construction of the Act, the development was authorised. Additionally, the claimant had not issued the claim with appropriate promptness. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The defendant appealed against a confiscation order, under s 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, requiring him to pay the sum of £308,380.29 within six months with a default term of three years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the judge had erred in accepting that £98,400 should be included in the benefit figure on the basis of a specialised index as to the cost of living. Accordingly, £209,280.29 was substituted as the amount that the defendant had to pay and as being the value of the benefit and the available amount. 

Data protection – Processing of information. The claimant issued proceedings seeking relief, including damages, for the defendant Ministry of Justice's breach of its duty under s 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the application, held that the defendant had contravened the provisions of the Act in relation to some material by a delay in its provision to the claimant. Accordingly, the claimant would be entitled to £1 for the delay and £2,250 for the distress he had suffered as a result of the delay. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant brought proceedings, contending that it was entitled to payment of a success fee under the terms of an engagement under which it agreed to provide services to the defendant company. The issue was whether the claimant's right to payment of a success fee was conditional on proof that its activities were an effective cause of the success in question being achieved. The Commercial Court, in granting the claimant's application for summary judgment, held that, where the desired event had been achieved, the claimant was entitled to its fee without the need for further inquiry as to whether it had been an effective cause of that event. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee, a former police officer, appealed against an employment tribunal's dismissal of his claim, which contended that he had been unfairly dismissal on the ground of protected disclosures he had made. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the appeal, held that on the facts, the tribunal had not erred in its approach either in deciding that the employee had not been subjected to detriments on the ground that he had made protected disclosures or in finding that the dismissal and the detriments to which he had been subjected had had nothing at all to do with matters related to race. Section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not prohibit the drawing of a distinction between the making of protected disclosures and the manner or way in which an employee went about the process of dealing with protected disclosures. 

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. The appellant Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care appealed against the Fitness to Practise Panel of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service's (the panel) finding that the registrant psychiatrist's online psychiatric blog was not a 'medical practice' and that his conduct had not amounted to misconduct. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that a finding of misconduct was warranted. In particular, the panel had erred in asking itself too limited a question as to whether the blog had been a medical practice. 

Value added tax – Input tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by Mr Noble, who traded as a sole trader under the name K & B C eilings, against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) which had upheld the rejection by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners of Mr Noble's deduction of input tax in his VAT tax returns. The tribunal decided that the invoices to which the input tax were said to relate had not been valid invoices as the services shown on those invoices had not been supplied to Mr Noble as alleged. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection made an order to the effect that neither the Children's Homes Regulations 2001 nor the joint guidance issued by the President of the Court of Protection and OFSTED of 12 February 2014 prevented the Court of Protection from authorising under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 that a person who was an adult might be be deprived of his liberty in premises which were a children's home. 

Limitation of action – Extension of time limit. The claimant had been employed by the defendant until 2004. He had developed hearing problems in 2001. In 2009, he issued proceedings seeking damages for noise-induced hearing loss caused by his employment. The judge found that the primary limitation period had expired in 2004 and exercised her discretion under s 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed out of time. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had erred in not having identified the periods of delay both before and after 2001. Her decision was set aside. In re-exercising the discretion, the court determined that it would not be equitable to allow the claim to proceed in respect of either period of claim. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) of Council Directive (EC) 2000/78 (establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation). The requests had been made in two sets of proceedings between certain federal civil servants and Germany, concerning the methods of allocating to those civil servants a step or a transitional step within grades of the pay scheme applicable in each case.