Latest Cases

Privacy – Citizen's right to privacy. The issue in the case concerned the powers and duties of the defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners to disclose information about its export control functions to the claimant non-governmental organisation, Privacy International. The Administrative Court held that the Revenue's decision that s 18 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 provided that it might not disclose any information had been unlawful. The court further identified factors relevant to the Revenue's exercise of discretion to disclose, including the status of affected persons, securing cooperation and confidence in the system, and the right to a 'no further action' decision and reasons. 

Company – Creditors voluntary liquidation. The claimant creditors of a company in creditors' voluntary liquidation issued proceedings against the former liquidator, R, of the company alleging fraud and seeking relief under s 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the s 212 proceedings). Shortly before the trial of that application, R made an interim application, among other things, seeking an order adjourning the trial. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that an unheralded very late application of the instant nature did not fit into the very narrow gap through which trivial non-compliance might be allowed to pass. R did not qualify as an applicant to challenge the validity of the claimants' proofs. It followed that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a challenge by it to a consent order made in the s 212 proceedings. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) had ruled that a survivor's pension scheme that had excluded partners registered in a civil partnership from benefits derived from service prior to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was incompatible with Directive (EC) 2000/78. In allowing the employer's appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had erred in holding the provisions of para 18 of Sch 9 to the Equality Act 2010 was incompatible with the Directive. The Directive did not purport to have retrospective effect such that inequalities in pay arising on the basis of sexual orientation prior to the date it was to have been transposed could form the basis of a claim after transposition though they could not have done before in the context of the employer's occupational pension scheme. 

European Union – Taxation. The United Kingdom applied to annul Council Decision (EU) 2013/52 authorising enhanced co-operation in the area of financial transaction tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action as the contested decision had not been contrary to either art 327 or 332 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

Company – Transfer of shares. The claimant owned shares in a company. Other shareholders formed a corporate vehicle, by which they sought to acquire all shares in the company. All members of the company except A accepted the offer. A subsequently brought proceedings, contending that unfair prejudice had occurred, including that the company had sought to expropriate his shares at a gross undervalue. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, no impropriety had occurred, and the claim would be dismissed. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant sought judicial review of his ongoing detention pending deportation. Little was known about his personal circumstances and basic questions had bedevilled the defendant Secretary of State's attempts to deport him. The Administrative Court held that, in the circumstances, the claimant's detention up until the date of the instant proceedings had been lawful. However, the Secretary of State faced new difficulties in deporting the claimant and it had become clear that there was no longer any realistic prospect of removing him within a reasonable timescale. Accordingly, applying settled law, the claimant's continued detention beyond the period needed to establish accommodation and to ensure compliance with bail conditions would be unlawful. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant had been employed for a number of years in a role which had involved regular exposure to asbestos. He developed diffuse pleural thickening and issued proceedings seeking compensation. As the employing companies had not had insurance, he issued proceedings against the defendant parent company. The county court judge found, on the evidence, that the defendant had owed the claimant a duty of care. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal. The basis upon which the judge had found a duty of care stemming from the defendant's appointment of a director to the employing company had been unsustainable. Further, the limited evidence available had fallen far short of that required to establish such a duty. 

Divorce – Practice. The court was hearing applications by the Queen's Proctor to dismiss a large number of divorce petitions and also, in many of the cases, to set aside decrees of divorce (some nisi, some absolute) obtained in consequence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice on an almost industrial scale. An important question arose in relation to the possible impact on the reporting of the proceedings of the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926 (the 1926 Act). The Family Court held that publication by the media of a report of the proceedings had not, given the nature of the proceedings, engaged the mischief at which the 1926 Act had been directed. 

Land registration – Charge. The proceedings arose from two sets of circumstances involving the claimant and his brothers, who were the first and fifth defendant. The disputes concerned the development of premises in Liverpool, and building work carried out in Dubai. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the fifth defendant's claims would be dismissed. The claimant would be entitled to an order removing a charge on the Liverpool property. His other claims would be dismissed. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Care orders had been made in respect of four siblings, with placement orders being made in respect of the two youngest. The mother appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the mother's appeal on the grounds that the judge had not considered the changed circumstances since the event that had given rise to the local authority commencing proceedings and because the judge had not considered less draconian orders. The court also made practice points regarding notification of appeals to parties and preparation of bundles where the party appealing was a litigant in person.