Latest Cases

Human rights – Discrimination. The first claimant 15-year-old Northern Ireland resident sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's policy that, in general, the NHS should not fund services for residents of Northern Ireland which the Northern Ireland Assembly had deliberately decided not to legislate to provide and which would be unlawful if provided in Northern Ireland. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that policy was not unlawful, as it had not led to an unlawful exercise of the Secretary of State's statutory functions under the National Health Service Act 2006 or on human rights grounds. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The parties disagreed on whether the respondent council was obliged to remove its alterations and reinstate the sub-let premises on the expiry of the sub-lease when the request to do so was made orally and not put in writing before the sub-lease expired. The Extra Division of the Inner House of the Court of Sessions held that writing was required and the appellant appealed. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, held that neither the sub-lease nor a minute of agreement authorising alterations to the sub-let premises had required such request to be in writing. 

Court of Protection – Mental defective. The claimant, who had been involved in alcoholism, homelessness and criminal acts, suffered a severe head injury. He lived in a care home, where he was receiving treatment. The defendant local authority granted the home a standard authorisation preventing the claimant from leaving unsupervised. The defendant wished to live, with assistance, in the community. He applied to terminate the standard authorisation. The Court of Protection held that the claimant lacked capacity to decide issues of accommodation and care. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the mental capacity requirement set out in para 15 of Sch A1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was satisfied, as the claimant lacked capacity to weigh up information when making decisions, and that detention in the care home was in RB's best interests. 

Proceeds of crime – Restraint order. A restraining order was made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and a receiver was appointed to a group of companies, but the orders were subsequently set aside. The Supreme Court held that although as a matter of domestic law the setting aside of the receiver's appointment did not retrospectively affect his entitlement to be paid out of those assets for his proper remuneration and expenses during the period of the receivership, on the facts of the case there was no good arguable case to do so. It further held that as there had been a total failure of consideration for the basis of the appointment of the receivers', the CPS were the parties required to pay the fees. 

Land registration – Acquisition of title by possession. The claimant sought to register title to a property on the basis that he had been in adverse possession. The defendant Chief Land Registrar cancelled the application because s 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 prevented the claimant relying on any period involving a criminal offence. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the mere fact that the adverse possession had been based on criminal trespass had not precluded a successful claim to adverse possession. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The Pensions Regulator brought claims against the five defendants, contending that schemes created by them had constituted a misuse or misappropriation of the assets of an occupational or personal pension scheme. The fifth defendant, BW, brought an application seeking to strike out most of the claim. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of the relevant legislation, the application would be dismissed. 

Criminal law – Manslaughter. The defendant killed his wife, but contended that he was guilty of manslaughter by reason of his diminished responsibility. He was convicted of murder and appealed against conviction. Dismissing his appeal, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the judge had not erred in refusing to allow to go before the jury the evidence of a medical expert in a voir dire that the defendant ought not to give evidence. Nor had he erred in the way he dealt with certain bad character evidence in his summing up. Finally, the judge had not erred in refusing to give the jury any directions as to the meaning of the word 'substantial' within s 2(1)(b) of the Homicide Act 1957. 

Land – Interest in land. The Chancery Division granted the claimant's a declaration that the defendants had no beneficial interest in a property and, in particular, no beneficial interest under a trust of land that was a right or claim in relation to the registered estate itself of the property, falling within s 42(1)(c) of the Land Registration Act 2002. 

Contempt of court – Breach of court order. The claimant applied for a declaration that the European Commission was in contempt of court. The Administrative Court considered whether its grant of interim relief had any binding effect on the Commission or the courts of another member state and, if not, whether the Commission was under any duty to respect the order. It concluded that nothing done by the Commission outside the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales could amount to a contempt of court under English law, and further set out its views on the scope of the duty of sincere cooperation. The court refused a declaration, although the Commission's conduct had been, in some respects, open to criticism. 

Extradition – Judicial corruption – Right to fair trial. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal against an order for an appellant's extradition to his native Albania, he having been convicted in his absence of murder, the court held that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the level of corruption in the Albanian judicial system was at the 'systemic' level, or that there was a risk of the appellant being the subject of an unfair trial should he be extradited to Albania.