Latest Cases

Road traffic – Regulation of traffic. The claimant supermarket operator applied for a statutory review in relation to traffic regulation orders (TROs) adopted by the defendant local authority in relation to four roads. Dismissing the application, the Administrative Court held that the authority had not acted unlawfully and had held an adequate consultation process. The authority had not failed to give proper reasons for making the TROs. Nor had it failed to give proper consideration to the desirability of providing access to premises or the issue of air quality. It had not failed to have regard to the fact the major works had been ongoing throughout the period that the TROs had been trialled and there had been no legitimate expectation that different options would be trialled. Finally, the suggestion that the authority had erred in failing to convene a public inquiry was misconceived 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of cl 1 and 2.4 of the framework agreement on parental leave, set out in the annex to Council Directive (EC) 96/34. The request had been made in proceedings between Lyreco Belgium NV and the respondent concerning the calculation of the fixed-sum protective award payable to her because of her unlawful dismissal during part-time parental leave. 

Employment – Dismissal. In allowing the employer's appeal against the employment tribunal's (the tribunal) finding of unfair dismissal following a positive drugs test by the employee, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had fallen into error in eliding the two questions of the reason for dismissal and the fairness of the dismissal for that reason. In the present case, the tribunal had wrongly substituted its mindset for that of the employer. 

Trust and trustee – Investments. The Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber held that it was not bound by a previous decision of the High Court and that in any event the decision in Pierce v Wood was wrong. It further held that the Court of Appeal in Howell v Trippier had not held that the deeming effect of s 249(6)(b) Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 applied for the purposes of trust law generally or indeed for any purpose outside that Act. Section 249(6)(b) did not have any effect beyond that Act and that therefore the scrip dividend shares and their proceeds of sale were capital of the settlement. 

Practice and procedure – Defence. The Chancery Division, in granting the first to the fifth respondents an extension of time for service of their defences, held that an in-time application for an extension of time should not be treated as if it were an application for relief from sanctions, but should be judged against the overriding objective. 

Libel and slander – Fair comment. The first claimant well-known singer and television personality, and the second defendant professional footballer issued defamation proceedings against the defendant for an article published in its newspaper and on its website. The newspaper sought a determination that the words complained of were not capable of bearing the meaning attributed to them by the claimants. The Queen's Bench Division held that the two meanings pleaded by the first claimant were in fact one, which was defamatory and a statement of fact. The words complained of, in so far as they referred to the second claimant, bore a meaning which was substantially that which he attributed to them. 

Child – Protection. Police officers sought to a remove a child from the appellant's address into care, purportedly pursuant to powers contained in s 46 of the Children Act 1989. The initiating officer, M, did not attend and had not briefed the other officers. The appellant was convicted of obstructing a police officer, B, in the execution of his duty. She appealed by way of case stated. Dismissing the appeal, the Divisional Court held that the justices had been entitled to conclude that in the circumstances M had been acting lawfully in relying on s 46 of the Act. Further, it had not been essential for M to have explained to the other officers the nature of the significant harm of which he had thought the child had been at risk before B could have sufficient lawful justification for his actions. 

Practice – Parties. In the course of personal welfare proceedings relating to the first respondent 94 year old, Associated Newspapers, sought orders, including that it be joined as an interested party to the proceedings. The Court of Protection, in dismissing the application, held that Associated Newspapers was not involved in a justiciable issue. Further, it did not have 'sufficient interest' in the proceedings and its joinder was not 'desirable'. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Portuguese national had been convicted of and sentenced for cruelty her youngest child. She was subsequently detained under immigration powers between 11 July 2010 and 7 March 2012 pending deportation. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that detention had not been reasonable from 2 September 2011, by which time the Secretary of State could no longer consider that deportation would occur within a reasonable period of time. However, there had been exceptional circumstances which had justified the claimant's detention in the prison estate, including her conviction. 

Copyright – Infringement. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendants for infringement of his copyright. The judge found that the claimant had licensed the second defendant to use a tool that the claimant had developed, but no wider consent had been given. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the claimant's lies had been fatal to his claim in respect of the activities of the second defendant, but not the first defendant. Further, he had not misdirected himself in law and had arrived at conclusions which had been open to him on the evidence.