Latest Cases

Housing – Homeless person. The claimant had applied to the defendant local authority for accommodation. It found that she had become intentionally homeless. That decision was confirmed on review and upheld by the county court judge. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, followed established law that the decision maker was to consider whether the homelessness had been 'intentional' at the date when the applicant quit their accommodation and not the date of the decision maker's decision. On the facts, the claimant's appeal was dismissed. 

Local authority – Social services. The Administrative Court held that capital derived from the claimant's personal injury settlement which was managed by a deputy appointed by the Court of Protection had to be disregarded by the defendant local authority when deciding whether she could be required to contribute to the cost of care services she received. In reaching that conclusion, the court interpreted the meaning of 'Court of Protection' in para 44 of Sch 10 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, SI 1987/1967, and held that the claimant's capital fell within both para 44(1)(a) and (b) of the Regulations. 

Immigration – Refugee. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to certify as clearly unfounded their claims that removal to Italy would expose them to a real risk that the rights conferred on them by art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be breached. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, on the basis of the material very recently considered by the Secretary of State, which was the material before the court, the claims would be bound to fail in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). Accordingly, the Secretary of State had lawfully certified the claims. 

Negligence – Railway. Part of a tree fell from the first defendant's garden onto a railway line, causing damage to the claimant company's train. The claimant brought proceedings against the first defendant and the second defendant, who was a tree surgeon, for negligence. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the evidence, neither defendant had been negligent. 

Consumer credit – Agreement. The claimants had succeeded in obtaining compensation from the defendant creditor company on the basis that the relationship between them had been unfair within the meaning of s 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that the defendant had been liable for the misrepresentations and breach of the Insurance Conduct of Business Rules of a company deemed its agent, which had led to the claimants obtaining a loan and payment protection insurance. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The appellants were convicted of breach of an enforcement notice. The Crown Court affirmed that decision and the appellants appealed by way of case stated on eleven referred questions. The Divisional Court, in answering all the referred questions in the affirmative and dismissing the appeal, held, in particular, that the Crown Court had been correct in its construction of s 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that the relevant date for the determination of the availability of the defence under s 179(7) of the Act was the date of the offence given in the summons. 

Human rights – Association. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (the RMT), based in London, brought a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR) alleging that statutory restrictions on the right to strike and, in particular, the ban on secondary industrial action had hampered its ability to protect its members' interests in violation of the right to assembly under art 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR ruled that there had been no violation of that right on the basis that the specific situation of the present case had not disclosed an unjustified interference with the RMT's right to freedom of association as guaranteed by the Convention. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In the course of private law contact proceedings, the mother had made serious allegations against the father. Following a fact finding hearing, the judge found those allegations to be false and made an interim care order in respect of the child. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that there had been no procedural unfairness or irregularity in the process that had led to the order and that, where, in the circumstances, there had been only one realistic option, the judge had not erred in having made the order that he had. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employees worked in the parking enforcement services of a local authority. The authority out-sourced most of its parking operations and the employees were required to relocate. They were dismissed after their refusal to do so. The employment tribunal held that their dismissal was automatically unfair and that the transfer did not entail 'changes in the workforce' so as to bring them within the scope of reg 7(2) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246 (TUPE). The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the appellants' appeals, held that the tribunal had not erred in its interpretation of reg 7(2) of TUPE. 

Insolvency – Creditor's petition. A third party had assigned the debtor's debt to the petitioner, who had compromised the debt pursuant to a settlement agreement. The High Court had made an order for change of carriage of the petition to the second applicant. In dismissing the second applicant's bankruptcy petition brought against the debtor, the Bankruptcy Division of the High Court held that the agreement was enforceable and its effect was to extinguish the petition debt such that there was no petition debt of which the second applicant could have had carriage.