Latest Cases

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. A had been convicted of sexual offences and the Secretary of State sought to deport him. A challenged the deportation decision. One of his grounds of opposition was that he would be subject to violence in his country of origin if his crimes were known. An order was made, without notice to the media and without the ability for them to make representations, under s 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 that A could not be identified. The BBC sought to have that order set aside. The application was dismissed. The BBC appealed. The Supreme Court held that it had, in the circumstances, been necessary and lawful to have departed from the principles of open justice. Further, the order had not been incompatible with the rights of the BBC under art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the procedure that had been followed had satisfied the BBC's entitlement to an effective remedy. 

Police – Disclosure of information. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police's decisions to include on and not to remove from an enhanced criminal records certificate certain information concerning his sexual comments. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the inclusion of the matters represented a disproportionate interference with the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant was excluded from the United Kingdom by the Secretary of State as his presence in the UK was thought not to be conducive to the public good. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision. The Administrative Court held that the decision to exclude had been lawful and a decision by the Secretary of State to exclude a foreign national person from the UK, on the grounds that his presence was not conducive to the public good, did not require the level of detailed reasons expected from public law decision-makers in other areas. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Within the context of care proceedings, a care and placement order was made in respect of a child. The parents appealed and the county court judge found that the justices had erred in law. She then undertook her own welfare analysis and proportionality assessment and remade the decision. The father appealed the care and placement order made by the judge. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, gave guidance on when an appellate judge could remake a decision or whether the matter should be reheard. The father's appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 

Income tax – Loss relief. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners rejected the taxpayers' claims to set off trading losses in respect of certain partnerships so as to reduce their payments in respect of tax due, as the partnerships had entered into a settlement agreement. The taxpayers sought judicial review. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that as a result of the restatement of the partnership losses under the settlement agreement, the taxpayers had lost the right to carry back to earlier years the higher pre-amendment losses which had been claimed. 

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. 

Injunction – Confidential information. The claimant solicitor brought an action for misuse of private and confidential information and harassment, and for damages against the defendant sex worker. She counterclaimed for damages for harassment against him, and an injunction to restrain him from further harassing her or attending at her home, or disclosing information about her sex work. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was entitled to an order restraining the defendant from further disclosing any of the confidential or private information already disclosed by her which relates to his wife and his children, however the claim for harassment by the claimant failed. The claimant was found to have embarked on a course of conduct that constituted harassment but in all the circumstances, the defendant was not entitled to damages. 

Community legal service funding – Legal Services Commission. The claimant solicitors' firm was a 'panel' solicitor with a contract to provide appropriate legal services in connection with criminal cases. It sought additional payment in respect of 869 hours of time spent reviewing CCTV material. The Legal Services Commission refused and the costs judge affirmed that decision. The claimant appealed. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that, on its proper construction, the Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007, SI 2007/1174, did not allow for additional payment for a litigator addressing CCTV evidence. 

Judicial review – Act of Scottish Parliament. Court of Session: At the hearing of a reclaiming motion against the Lord Ordinary's rejection of a challenge to the legality of an enactment prohibiting the sale of alcohol on licensed premises at a price below the minimum price specified by order of the Scottish Ministers, the challenge proceeding entirely on the basis of European Union Law, the court concluded that it should exercise its discretion to request a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice. 

Practice – Stay of proceedings. The proceedings concerned a dispute concerning work carried out in Pakistan. In the course of the dispute, proceedings were issued in Pakistan by the defendants, but stayed by the Pakistani court. The claimant company commenced proceedings in England and obtained judgment in default against the defendants. The defendants applied to have, among other things, an order allowing the claimant to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction and judgment in default set aside. The Commercial Court held that the challenge to jurisdiction would fail, but the judgment would be set aside to allow the claim to be defended on limited grounds.