Latest Cases

European Union – Freedom of movement. The claimant companies issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to treat as medicinal products the large number of glucosamine-containing products (GCP) described as food supplements. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimants had failed to establish that the defendant had erred in refusing to treat all GCPs, alternatively, all GCPs marketed with a daily recommended dose of 1500mg, as medicinal products. 

Criminal law – Trial. The defendants were due to be tried for terrorism related offences. The court ordered that the entirety of the criminal trial be held in private and that the defendants would remain anonymous. Further restrictions were placed on reporting the hearing and judgment that had resulted in that order having been made. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, ordered that, although the core of the trial should be in private, part would be held in open court. Further, the anonymity orders would be lifted and, finally, the order that had prohibited reporting of the earlier proceedings had not been justified. 

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. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The local authority came before the court seeking to be appointed as the deputy of a 91 year old, GW, for his property and affairs. GW's niece, who had been managing his finances objected. The Court of Protection allowed the authority's application as it was in GW's best interests. 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to the United States to face trial for conspiracy to defraud. He contended that the circumstances fulfilled s 108(7) of the Extradition Act 2003, as it would be a real injustice for him to be extradited with a high risk of suicide and untreated post-traumatic stress disorder when the issue had not previously been properly put before the court. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that there had been no exceptional circumstances in relation to matters that should have been raised and there was no injustice. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. ACH was five. She and her mother lived in the United Kingdom. The father lived in America. Following unsuccessful proceedings in the UK, he had obtained orders from the Texan court that would allow him to obtain a passport for ACH without the mother's permission. The mother sought an order stating that, were the father to enter the UK, his passport and any passport for ACH could be seized. The Family Court held that, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to make the order sought. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. B was a young woman with mild learning difficulties. Following local authority intervention she was placed in a care home and her father was made subject to an injunction and orders prohibiting him from having direct contact with her. The local authority came before the court seeking a final determination of the case. The Court of Protection held that it was in the best interests of B to maintain the restrictions in contact and the injunction orders and that it was essential that B had peace from litigation and the instant was the best way of securing it. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. In the course of a patent dispute, the defendant company (B&S) challenged the jurisdiction of the English court. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held, in dismissing the application that, because B&S had entered an appearance before a court of the United Kingdom within the meaning of art 24 of the Brussels Convention on the Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968, the English Court had jurisdiction. 

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.