Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant sought the discharge of a freezing injunction made against the background of proceedings alleging fraudulent and dishonest breaches of his duty. He contended that there was no real risk that he would dissipate his assets and that the claimant had failed to make full disclosure when applying for the freezing order without notice. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that there was an inference of a risk that the defendant would dissipate his assets and that the omissions in disclosure were not sufficiently serious to lead to the discharge of the freezing order. 

Costs – Employment tribunal. In allowing the employee and her solicitor's appeals against orders for costs made in favour of the employer following the dismissal of the employee's claims, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal had not considered whether the costs order against the employee had been appropriate or given the employee a chance to put forward evidence of her means. Further, the solicitor had not been invited to submit evidence of his advice to the employee, and the tribunal had made no findings of the effect of any negligence, such that the wasted costs order had been flawed. 

Tort – Cause of action. The defendant newspaper published photographs of the children of well-known musician, Paul Weller, taken in California. The children sought damages and an injunction for misuse of private information and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Queen's Bench Division held that it could assess what the defendant had known and what it ought to have known in determining the children's reasonable expectation of privacy. Further, the lawfulness of taking and publishing the photographs in California would be taken into account when assessing the legal tests, but was not determinative. Having found the claims established, it awarded the children damages totalling £10,000. 

Employment – Disability. The claimant police officer (the officer) had brought a claim of discrimination on ground of disability before the employment tribunal against the decision of the employer police force, taken by the Police Misconduct Board (the Board) to continue proceedings for gross misconduct against her and in failing to make reasonable adjustments based on her post-traumatic stress disorder. In dismissing the officer's appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Board was entitled to judicial immunity against claims impugning its conduct. 

Race relations – Discrimination. The employee, a deputy head teacher at the employer primary school, had had a poor working relationship with the headteacher. The employee had accidentally sent an email to 20 members of staff setting out her grievances and referring to the headteacher as a racist. In dismissing the employee's appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal's judgment was to be read in its entirety: its conclusions had been sufficiently reasoned. 

Royal College of General Practitioners – Medical practitioner. The claimant British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin sought to challenge by way of judicial review the lawfulness of the continuing adoption and application of the Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA) by the first defendant Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) as assessors and the second defendant General Medical Council as regulators. Dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that at the time of the instant proceedings, the defendants had not been in breach of their public sector equality duty under s 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Further, the requirement to pass the CSA had not been unlawfully racially discriminatory either directly or indirectly. 

Extradition – Extradition hearing. The district judge ordered that the appellant Latvian nationals should be extradited to Latvia pursuant to European arrest warrants. The appellants appealed on the basis that there was a real risk that their rights under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be breached if they were detained in prison in Latvia. Dismissing the appeal, the Administrative Court held that a general attack on Latvian prison conditions could not possibly succeed. Further, none of the appellants had been able to present special circumstances which had given rise to a real risk of treatment contrary to art 3 of the Convention. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Privilege. The claimant applied for the destruction of certain documents claiming confidentiality and privilege. The defendant maintained that privilege had been waived. The Queen's Bench Division held that there was no foundation in fact for the defendants' argument about waiver. Given the highly confidential nature of the privileged document, there was no arguable basis for contending that there had been a waiver by the claimant of his privilege in the material. 

Extradition – Extradition hearing. The respondent judicial authority sought the appellant Romanian national's extradition pursuant to a European arrest warrant. The district judge ordered the appellant's extradition and the appellant appealed. Allowing the appeal, the Administrative Court held that in the instant case the warrant had been invalid by reason of inadequacy of particulars of conduct, pursuant to s 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. The appellant had been entitled to known in the context of which the case against him had been framed in the warrant which offences were said to have been committed by him and how many offences he would fact at trial. 

Contract – Commission. The case concerned a claim by the claimant, a firm of yacht brokers, for commission on the sale of a yacht belonging the defendants. The claimant alleged that, pursuant to the first defendant's instructions, it had shown the yacht to M, the owner of a company, which had later bought it. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the claimant had not been instructed to market the yacht at the relevant time and, even if it had been, it had not been an effective cause of the eventual sale of the yacht to M's company.