Latest Cases

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. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The claimant contended that the fourth defendant should be treated as having filed her costs budget comprising only the applicable court fees, under CPR 3.14, as she had served it six clear days before the hearing, rather than the requisite seven. The fourth defendant sought relief from sanctions. The Technology and Construction Court held that the fourth defendant could rely upon her costs budget as served, as the non-compliance or breach had been trivial and/or insignificant and/or inconsequential. 

Bank – Banker/client relationship. Following the first claimant's default on a senior facilities agreement, the first defendant bank had disclosed reports to the second defendant competitor of the claimants. In considering the claimant's claims for breach of confidentiality, the Chancery Division considered that the first defendant had breached its contractual obligation of confidence and summarily assessed damages of £5,000 to reflect the amount that the first defendant would have had to pay for the work to be done if the second defendant had not been a company within the first claimant's group. The claim against the second defendant for breach of an equitable obligation of confidence was dismissed. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employees brought claims of unfair dismissal before the employment tribunal (the tribunal). The tribunal found that those claims were well founded and awarded compensation of £51,999.30 to the first employee and £9,031.04 to the second employee. The employer appealed against the decision on quantum. Allowing the appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that in the instant case the tribunal had considered what it would have seen as the correct outcome, and so had wrongly substituted its view for that of the employer. 

Immigration – Education. The Secretary of State decided to reduce the first claimant's confirmation of acceptance for studies allocation to zero, to suspend its highly trusted status licence and to require it to apply for a new licence. She further decided to suspend and then revoke the second claimant's highly trusted status licence. The claimants sought judicial review and the Secretary of State contended that the claims were academic. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the applications, held that the claims were academic and there was no benefit to the claimants in pursuing them. 

Adoption – Dispensing with consent of parent or guardian. The step-father (B) of a minor (M) born in Thailand had made an application to adopt M. B and M's mother applied to dispense with the requirement to notify M's birth father (X) of the application. In allowing that application, the Family Division held that X was not an automatic party to the proceedings and the circumstances of the case justified confidentiality. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The claimant housemate in the 2012 series of Big Brother issued libel proceedings concerning two broadcasts of Big Brother. The producer and broadcaster sought summary judgment on the grounds that the words complained of were incapable of bearing the pleaded meanings and that they were not capable of being defamatory. The Queen's Bench Division, in granting the application, held that neither of the broadcasts had been capable of bearing the meanings alleged by the claimant or any other meanings defamatory of her. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. In considered the local authority's application for declarations regarding the capacity of T, who had mild learning disabilities, atypical autism and hyperactivity disorder, the Court of Protection held that T did not have the capacity to decide whether a person with whom he might wish to have sexual relations was safe or what support he required when having contact with an individual with whom he might wish to have sexual relations. The court gave declarations regarding T's care plan and dismissed the application to appoint the local authority as T's welfare deputy. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Bangladeshi national sought a declaration and damages for his unlawful immigration detention. The Administrative Court held that para 16(1A) of Sch 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 provided power to detain pending completion of the examination under para 2A of Sch 2 to the Act and a separate power to detain pending a decision on whether to cancel leave to enter. However, for a period of his detention, the Secretary of State had not been acting reasonably and with expedition to determine whether to cancel leave to enter. The claimant was only entitled to nominal damages because he would have been lawfully detained in any event. 

Minor – Custody. In considering a proposed agreement made between the local authority and the parents of X, who had complex health needs and was in foster care, the Family Division endorsed the agreement and invited one of the parties to issue proceedings under the court's inherent jurisdiction. The court made several observations about the authority's handling of the case, particularly in regard to unacceptable delays and failure to make adequate assessments, but recognised the authority's assurances that those would not be repeated.