Latest Cases

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. 

Discrimination – Nationality, on the grounds of. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal (the tribunal) had not erred in holding to be justified an indirectly discriminatory criterion for entry to the two-year post graduate Foundation Programme for medical students. The tribunal had not erred in concluding that the criterion had been a reasonably necessary and proportionate way of achieving legitimate aims and so the indirect discrimination on grounds related to nationality had been justified in both domestic and European Union law. 

Extradition – Extradition hearing. The appellant Spanish national was accused of involvement in a conspiracy to launder money which was the proceeds of crime. The respondent judicial authority sought her extradition pursuant to a European arrest warrant. The district judge ordered the appellant's extradition and she appealed. Allowing the appeal, the Administrative Court held that, in the circumstances, the opinions of an expert psychologist should not have been discounted in the way that they had been by the judge. In the instant case, the likely damage to two of the appellant's children had been such that the extradition of the appellant would have amounted to a disproportionate interference with their rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Education – Local education authority. The appellant mother had sought to change the special school specified by the respondent local authority in her son's statement of special educational needs. Her appeals had been dismissed by both the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed her appeal and held that s 9 of the Education Act 1996 had been engaged by virtue of s 324(4)(b) of the same Act where, in principle, it was difficult to see why there should be a difference with regard to the applicability of s 324(4), and therefore also of s 9, between para 3 of Sch 27 to the Act and para 8 of Sch 27. 

Landlord and tenant – Right to manage. A right to manage company (the RTM) applied under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to the tribunal to acquire the right to manage a building containing self contained flats. The freehold owner, the claimant opposed the application. In due course, the RTM withdrew the application and the claim and informed the valuation tribunal, who cancelled the hearing date. The claimant disagreed with that outcome for costs purposes and sought that the tribunal take jurisdiction. The tribunal refused and the claimant applied for judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court held that the tribunal had erred in concluding that it no longer had jurisdiction in relation to the application simply because the RTM had notified the tribunal of its wish to withdraw the application. 

Licensing – Club. The Administrative Court considered two challenges to a local authority's decision not to grant licences to lap-dancing clubs. The court held that, among other things, the decisions had been legitimately taken and proper reasons for them had been given. 

Land charge – General equitable charge. The proceedings concerned a dispute between two companies that had charges over the same property. An issue arose as to which of the charges had priority. The applicant company applied for a declaration that its charge would take priority. The Chancery Division dismissed the application and gave consideration to the meaning of a 'further advance' within s 49(3) of the Land Registration Act 2002. 

Shipping – Charterparty. Under a time charterparty, the owner had chartered its vessel to the charterer. The owner brought arbitration proceedings seeking withheld hire in respect of a period when the vessel had been detained subject to an arrest order. The arbitrators dismissed the owner's claim and the owner appealed to the High Court. The judge held that the arbitrators had erred in their decision that the arrest of the vessel in question had not fallen within the proviso to the 'off-hire clause' contained in the charterparty. In the light of the court's ruling that the proviso in that clause had applied, the question of causation was remitted to the tribunal to determine. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the judge's decision, albeit on a different construction of the proviso to the off-hire clause, and determined that the judge had been correct to remit the question of causation. 

National health service – General medical services. The claimants ran a general practitioner medical practice. They issued proceedings against a primary care trust for breach of a contract, giving them health service body status, which had been varied. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the variation agreement had not needed to mention the claimants' health service body status, as the original agreement had. Accordingly, the variation agreement had been an NHS contract and the claimants had had no legally enforceable rights by virtue of s 9(5) of the National Health Service Act 2006. Further, it allowed the defendant's application to amend to seek a strike out of the proceedings, as the claimants would not be prejudiced and, on the basis of its findings, struck out the proceedings. 

Immigration – Asylum – Refusal of leave to appeal. Court of Session: Granting a petition for judicial review of a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) refusing the petitioner leave to appeal against a decision of the First Tier Tribunal, the court held that the immigration judge's approach to the assessment of the best interests of the petitioner's child raised an important point of principle or practice, and the UT judge's decision that there was 'no arguable legal error' was manifestly bad.