Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant applied to quash a decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State dismissing its appeal against the second defendant local authority's refusal of planning permission for residential development. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had been entitled to conclude that it had been undesirable to allocate the whole of the site for residential use, contrary to the relevant policy. Further, the inspector had not erred in his conclusions concerning future educational needs. 

Arbitration – Award. A contractual dispute between two overseas companies was referred to arbitration. An award was made in favour of the defendant. The claimant's appeal was dismissed for its failure to pay the requisite fees and arbitration costs and its application for an extension of time to pay was refused. The claimant issued proceedings in the Commercial Court to set aside the order, pursuant to ss 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. An issue arose as to whether the claimant had exhausted an available arbitral process of appeal or review or whether it was precluded from bringing the instant claim. The court held that it had exhausted an available arbitral process and that a challenge to a First-tier award, pursuant to ss 67 ad 68 of the Act, was not precluded by the terms of s 70(2) or s 73(2) of the Act. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeals brought by Nexans SA and Nexans France SAS (the companies), in which those companies sought to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Nexans France and Nexans v Commission: T‑135/09. In that judgment, the General Court had partially dismissed the companies' action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 92/1, ordering the companies to submit to an inspection in accordance with art 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (on the implementation of the rules of competition laid down in Articles 81 EC and 82 EC). 

Sentence – Appeal. The claimant appealed against his sentence of eight years' imprisonment for conspiracy to commit robbery, three months' imprisonment for failure to surrender to his bail, to run concurrently and disqualification from driving for five years. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been obliged to consider that a firearm had been used and the defendant's five previous offences of failing to surrender to bail. Further, as the defendant had driven the getaway car, the disqualification had been entirely appropriate. 

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the application by the European Parliament for: (i) annulment of Council Decision 2011/640/CFSP (the contested decision); and (ii) the maintenance of the effects of that decision. The Court decided that by failing to inform the European Parliament at all stages of the negotiations and of the conclusion of the EU-Mauritius Agreement, the Council had infringed art 218(10) on the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. 

Proceeds of crime – Restraint order. The applicants appealed against a judge's refusal to discharge and vary ex parte orders, restraining them from dealing with property said to be worth more than £1m, under s 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, discharged the orders against the third and fourth defendant companies, as there was no reasonable cause to believe that they had been laundering money. It further imposed a cap of £720,000 on the orders against the first and second applicants, as there was no realistic possibility that a confiscation order would follow in excess of that sum. 

Employment – 'Worker'. The employment tribunal had held that the claimant was a 'worker' for the purpose of s 43K(1) Employment Rights Act 1996, so as to entitle him to bring a claim of having suffered detriment under s 47B of that Act on the ground that he had made a protected disclosure. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the respondent's appeal, held that the tribunal had made no error of law, but had reached conclusions that had been properly open to it on the evidence. 

Minor – Abduction. In the course of proceedings between the Spanish mother and English father, the Supreme Court referred a question to the Family Division. The Family Division held that, on the evidence, none of the children in the case had lost their habitual residence in England when the mother had taken them to Spain. 

Criminal evidence – Admissibility of evidence – Sheriff's charge. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of two charges involving his having exposed himself to complainers, the court held that the jury were prevented from considering the appellant's admissions in the light of all the material evidence relating to them, the trial sheriff having erred in sustaining the Crown's objection to a line of evidence about how the appellant felt during his police interview and in directing the jury to disregard his evidence about how he felt during the interview and that that there was no challenge to the fairness of the interview. 

Criminal law – Suicide. The Supreme Court considered two appeals together, concerning three appellants who had suffered from permanent and catastrophic physical disabilities and wished to die at the time of their choosing. However, they were not physically capable of ending their own life unaided. The Court considered, amongst other things, whether s 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 infringed the appellants' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.