Latest Cases

Commons – Registration. An application was made to register an area of land as a town or village green. The application was defective and a little over a year passed before a fully compliant application was registered with the defendant local authority. The claimant landowner objected. The High Court judge found that if the corrections were made within a reasonable period then the corrected application would take effect from the filing date and that the relevant application had been perfected within a reasonable opportunity. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that reg 5(4) of the Commons (Registration of Town or Village Greens) (Interim Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2007, SI 2007/457, provided a means for curing deficiencies in an application which did not provide all the statutory particulars, and, once an application was so cured, it was treated as duly made on the date on which the original defective application had been lodged. Further, the question of reasonable opportunity was one for the court, not the registration authority. The appeal was allowed as a reasonable opportunity to file a non-defective application had been exceeded. 

Immigration – Asylum/humanitarian protection – Leave to appeal. Court of Session: Refusing an application by a Zimbabwean applicant seeking leave to appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissing her appeal against the First Tier Tribunal (FTT)'s rejection of her claim for asylum/humanitarian protection, the court held that the proposed grounds of appeal―that a country guidance case had been superseded by a report placed before the FTT and that both tribunals had failed to apply the correct test for internal relocation―did not give rise to any important point of principle or practice, and there was no other compelling reason for the court to hear the appeal. 

Child – Care. Care proceedings before the court concerned two young children, K, born in 2011, and S, born in 2013. The local authority had issued the proceedings in 2013 following the sudden death of S's identical twin sister L at the age of 16 weeks. Since then, K and S were in foster care with a very high level of parental contact. When she was aged eight months, her mother had taken K to hospital with a swollen head; which turned out to be a fractured skull. There was a fact finding hearing to determine whether the injuries and death were non-accidental. The Family Court held that the grounds for making the care orders did not exist and the local authority's applications had to be dismissed. In consequence, the children would be returned to the care of their parents in a manner to be agreed between the parents and the social workers. 

Interdict – Wrongful interdict– Damages. Court of Session: In an action in which a landlord sought damages in respect of losses caused by wrongful interdict, a sheriff having granted interim interdict against him from encroaching on premises leased to the defender but subsequently recalled the interim interdict and ordered rectification of the relevant lease and land register, holding that they erroneously showed both a shop and yard as leased to defender whereas the correct position was a lease of the shop alone, the court allowed a reclaiming motion against the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor dismissing the action, holding that the defender acted at her own risk and was liable to the pursuer for any loss caused by her unjustified use of interdict. 

Practice – Family proceedings. The local authority had in place a care plan in respect of the child, D. Thereafter, D remained at home for 18 months with his parents under the care plan. The local authority social worker became increasingly worried about aspects of his care and concluded that D should be removed from his parents' care to foster carers and gave notice to the parents to that effect. The father applied for an injunction under s 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The judge refused the injunction and the father applied for permission to appeal. The Family Division granted permission and allowed the appeal on the basis of established law. 

Building contract – Construction of building contract. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant contractor for damages for defects and alleged overpayment in respect of work carried out on her country house. In the course of proceedings, the Technology and Construction Court gave a preliminary ruling on the true construction of a clause in a building contract, which provided for any defects to be rectified in a stated rectification period. The court held that an 'appropriate deduction' meant a deduction which was reasonable in all the circumstances and could be calculated by reference to one or more factors. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) had dismissed the employee's unfair dismissal claims, having found that her dismissal had not been by reason of protected disclosures that she had made and that her dismissal had, therefore, been fair. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the dismissal had been by reason of her misconduct, that the dismissal had been fair and that the tribunal's decision had not been perverse. 

Negligence – Personal injury. There were several negligence claims consolidated in regard to certain alleged road traffic accidents. The Queen's Bench Division held that on the evidence, no road traffic accidents of the sort alleged in the claim forms had occurred and the claims would be dismissed. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning arts 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The requests had been made in three sets of proceedings concerning the formation of tax entities. 

Prison – Prisoner. The claimant remand prisoner sought judicial review of the decision not to temporarily admit her to the mother and baby unit pending the outcome of her trial for attempted murder and wounding with intent and sentence. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that, amongst other things, the procedure adopted by the prison authorities had not complied with the procedural requirements imposed. Accordingly, the decision was wrong as a matter of domestic public law and disproportionate.