Latest Cases

Contract – Construction. The Administrative Court ruled on the correct interpretation of a standard Dental Services Contract entered into by the claimant dentists and the defendant health board. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant bank contended that the defendant was liable for repayment of a loan paid to a United States law firm of which he was a partner and sought summary judgment. The defendant contended that the loan was to the firm and, alternatively, he was a guarantor. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the application, held that the defendant might establish that his obligations were those he had identified when seen against the background of the particular circumstances in which the contractual documents had been signed and the factual matrix as to the true purpose of the transaction. 

Police – Constable. The claimant police officer shot a person in the course of his duty. The defendant chairman of the public inquiry into the shooting found that the claimant could not have reasonably believed that the victim had posed an immediate threat. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application for permission to apply for judicial review of the findings of the defendant, but gave some guidance as to the correct approach in such inquiries. 

Nursing – Nursing and Midwifery Council. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant nurse's appeal against her erasure from the register. The respondent Nursing Midwifery Council's Fitness to Practise panel had not introduced a further charge of which the appellant had not had notice. Further, it had not failed to give adequate weight or credit to admissions made by the appellant and had not failed to take into account the mitigating features of the case. Nor had the panel been wrong to characterise the appellant as evasive. Finally, in the circumstances, the panel's decision to strike the appellant off the register had not been excessive or disproportionate. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought to quash the decision of the first defendant Secretary of State's inspector to dismiss his appeal against the refusal by the second defendant local authority to grant planning permission for a building constructed in the garden of a property he owned. Dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that the inspector had applied the proper test in relation to whether there had been a fall-back position and had properly assessed what the fall-back might be. Further, the reasons provided by the second inspector had been adequate. Furthermore, he had not been required to reach a definitive conclusion on what could be accomplished using permitted development rights. Finally, there had not been any unfairness in the procedures adopted in the instant case. 

Contract – Construction. The claimant company commissioned a yacht from the first defendant company. Further agreements, including a loan, were made following the first defendant's difficulty in meeting its obligations. The claimant issued an application for summary judgment for the repayment of the loan. The judge entered summary judgment for the claimant on the construction of a clause and implied terms favourable to the defendants, but dismissed the balance of the summary judgment application. The parties appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been correct in his construction of the clause, but that only one implied term was necessary. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Pakistani national illegal overstayer's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to order his deportation from the United Kingdom. The order for his removal was neither disproportionate nor unduly harsh. 

Public authority – Operation of air and sea ports. The Chancery Division held that the authority had not had the authority to impose a ban which had prevented the claimants from using a port to export livestock on a vessel, the 'Joline'. The ban had been an unjustifiable breach of art 35 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the authority was liable to pay damages to the claimants. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant bank sought to enforce a judgment granted in its favour against Mr Ablyazov. The Commercial Court granted the bank a declaration that Mr Ablyazov was the beneficial owner of shares in a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands where new evidence substantiated that as fact. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant was a Greek national detained by the defendant between 28 May and 5 December 2006, pursuant to a deportation order made on 20 March 2006, which was later revoked. He claimed damages for false imprisonment, on the basis that, following the implementation of Directive (EC) 2004/38 by the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 2000/1813, with effect from 30 April 2006, he could only be removed from the UK 'on imperative grounds of public security' which were never established in his case. The Queen's Bench Division upheld that claim and agreed with the submissions of the claimant.