Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The first defendant Welsh Ministers granted planning permission for the extension of a dairy unit on the ground that the economic benefits outweighed the social and environmental objections. The claimant international animal welfare organisation applied to quash the grant of planning permission, under s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was no merit in any of the claimant's challenges. 

European Union – Community foreign and security policy. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Abolnaser Hemmati (AH) for annulment of: (i) Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran), in so far as it had included AH's name in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP); and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 1245/2011 (implementing Regulation (EU) 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran) in so far as it had included AH's name in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) 961/2010 (on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) 423/2007). 

Conflict of laws – Foreign judgment. Judgment was acquired by the claimant company against the defendant in the Russian court. The claimant sought to enforce the judgment against the defendant in the English court. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, there was no substance in the defendant's arguments, and hence the claimant was entitled to judgment. 

Human rights – Infringement of human rights. The applicant's wife had been in critical condition in hospital. A 'do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation' notice had been put on her patient record to the effect that cardio-pulmonary resuscitation was not to be performed if required. Neither the patient nor her family had agreed to such a notice. When the family objected, the notice was removed from the notes. The family sought judicial review of the decision to place the notice on her file, contending that to have done so without adequate consultation with the patient and her family and without notifying any of them had been a breach of the patient's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the NHS Trust had violated the patient's rights under art 8 by having failed to involve her in the process which had led to the first notice. In general, there was a presumption in favour of patient involvement in the decision, although there were certain limited circumstances where such involvement might not be required. 

Dentist – Disciplinary proceedings. Patient A, being dissatisfied with the service that M, a dentist was providing referred the matter to the General Dental Council (the council), who found the allegations proved and suspended M for four months. M appealed against that determination on the grounds that the findings of fact made by the professional conduct committee (the committee) were wrong and that the suspension that was contingent upon the finding of dishonesty should be set aside. The Administrative Court held that the challenges to the committee's determination would be rejected save for the allegation that his conduct in altering two out of the five records was not dishonest and the sanction would be quashed. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Application. The claimant had been imprisoned for the murder of his girlfriend. He sought the disclosure of further information relating to the case from the police. The first defendant Chief Constable refused to disclose documents to the extent required by the claimant. The claimant commenced an application for judicial review, seeking, among other things, an order requiring the Chief Constable to grant him access to the prosecution evidence. The Supreme Court held, in dismissing the application, that there was no indefinitely continuing duty on the police or prosecution either in the same form as existed pre-trial or to respond to whatever enquiries the claimant might make for access to the case materials to allow re-investigation. 

Cohabitation – Unmarried couple. The proceedings concerned the entitlement of the claimant to provision from the deceased's estate. She had lived with the deceased for some time. The court determined, as a preliminary issue, that she was covered by the Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975. The claimants appealed against that finding. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the court had been entitled to come to that conclusion. 

Child – Court proceedings in relation to child. The local authority sought a reporting restrictions order in resepct of a child whose mother had been purportedly murdered by her father. The child was in care whilst her father awaited trial for the murder. The press association opposed the order on the basis that among other things there was insufficient evidence of harm to the child she was named. The Family Division held that the application would be refused. 

Practice – Costs budget. In proceedings concerning a dispute over a lease, the claimant served its costs budget two days late, namely five, rather than seven, days prior to the first case management conference. The claimant applied for relief from sanctions. The Technology and Construction Court held that the non-compliance or breach had been trivial and/or insignificant and/or inconsequential, and that the claimant could rely on its costs budget. Further, completion of a case management information sheet did not in any way relieve a party from its separate obligations to file and/or serve a costs budget in accordance with the provisions of CPR 3.12 to 3.18. 

Police – Disclosure of information. The Supreme Court held that provisions of Pt V of the Police Act 1997 were incompatible with art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, insofar as they required the disclosure of all convictions and cautions, for failure to meet the tests of legality and necessity. Further, the interference of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, SI 1975/1023, with the right under art 8 of the Convention had not been necessary, although that Order had not been ultra vires.