Latest Cases

Nuisance – Noise. In a case concerning private nuisance, the Supreme Court provided guidance on the following issues: (i) the extent, if any, to which it was open to a defendant to contend that he had established a prescriptive right to commit what would otherwise be a nuisance by means of noise; (ii) the extent, if any, to which a defendant to a nuisance claim could rely on the fact that the claimant 'came to the nuisance'; (iii) the extent, if any, to which it was open to a defendant to a nuisance claim to invoke the actual use of his premises, complained of by the claimant, when assessing the character of the locality; (iv) the extent, if any, to which the grant of planning permission for a particular use could affect the question of whether that use was a nuisance or any other use in the locality could be taken into account when considering the character of the locality; and (v) the approach to be adopted by a court when deciding whether to grant an injunction to restrain a nuisance being committed, or whether to award damages instead, and the relevance of planning permission to that issue. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant had appealed against two convictions of rape and three counts of indecency with a child, where he received a total sentence of 12 years' imprisonment. The defendant contended that the judge had erred in allowing the prosecution to adduce bad character evidence based on previous convictions and that the judge's summing up at the trial, focusing on those previous convictions, had been erroneous. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal held that there could be no fault on the part of the judge and that he had been entitled to allow such evidence to be adduced and that his summing up had been entirely proper. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The defendant Secretary of State refused the claimants further leave to remain and ordered their deportation. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) affirmed that decision, but the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) set aside the deportation order. The claimants appealed on the ground that the UT had failed to deal with their case under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that if there had been an error of law in failing to formally dispose of the claim under art 8 of the Convention, it had not been material and the UT had been right to refuse permission to appeal in respect of it. 

Child – Care. The judge made a placement order on the basis that, although the father had the capacity to carry out the basic physical parenting of the child, the unanimous professional opinion was that he did not have the capacity to meet the child's identified emotional and psychological needs. The father appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had been wrong to make the order without further assessment of the situation of the father and child. Further, she had not adequately articulated the reasons to proceed to make a placement order. 

Compensation – Crime. The instant appeal concerned the payment of compensation to persons acquitted of criminal convictions following miscarriages of justice pursuant to s 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the banding of persons to whom compensation was payable following the Supreme Court's decision in R (on the application of Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice; MacDermott, Re[2011] 3 All ER 261 (Adams). The claimants had been refused compensation and the Divisional Court had dismissed their applications for judicial review. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, confirmed that the correct test for identifying 'category 2 cases' of persons eligible for compensation was that identified by Lord Phillips in Adams and not the test as re-formulated by the Divisional Court. However, the appeals were dismissed on their merits. 

Value added tax – Tax avoidance scheme. The Chancery Division considered the alleged involvement of the defendants in a large-scale carousel fraud involving the importing of mobile phones. It found that a number of the defendants, and the companies they controlled, had knowingly participated in activities carried out to defraud the Revenue and Customs Commissioners. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The seven defendants had either pleaded guilty or been convicted after trial each for one count of conspiracy to supply a controlled drug of class A. The sentences they received spanned from 9 years and 4 months to 17 years' imprisonment. Each applied for leave to appeal against sentence all generally contended that the sentences passed had too high a starting point and/or were manifestly excessive in the circumstances. All bar one of the defendants, PM, were refused leave to appeal. PM's 15 year sentence was reduced to one of 14 years' imprisonment after it was concluded that insufficient credit had been given for his guilty plea. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant sought a declaration that his detention pending deportation by the defendant Secretary of State had been unlawful. Dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that it was a matter of common sense that if a person obstructed the deportation process and failed to cooperate with the Secretary of State then the 'reasonable' period would be longer and probably much longer. It might cover, if necessary, a number of years, provided the Secretary of State made real and continuous efforts to ascertain where the detainee had come from and should be deported to. In the instant case, the claimant had been obstructive ever since he had first claimed asylum and the Secretary of State had acted reasonable and conscientiously to ascertain the destination. In the period prior to the claimant's release, it had not yet become apparent that the Secretary of State would not be able to effect deportation within a reasonable period, such reasonable period being long enough to enable her to exhaust all inquiries as to the claimant's country of origin. Consequently, the claimant's detention had not been unlawful. 

Licence – Licensing authorities. The claimant applied for judicial review of the decision of the district judge to uphold the decision of the interested party licensing authority to modify the conditions of the claimant's nightclub premises licences notwithstanding two errors in the notice advertising the licence review. Dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that minor errors on a notice of advertisement for a licensing review should not make any subsequent consideration of the licence void. The claimant's suggestion that there had been a total failure to comply with a significant part of a requirement had not reflected the reality of what had occurred. The district judge had considered the errors in the notice to be 'minor irregularities.' In the context of the instant case that had been an entirely reasonable conclusion. 

Arbitration – Stay of court proceedings. A dispute arose in respect of sums allegedly due to the claimant from the defendant by way of 'success fees' under a consultancy agreement 9the agreement). The claimant referred a dispute to arbitration. The defendant refused to pay an advance on costs, as required under the Arbitration Rules. The claimant treated the agreement as repudiated and withdrew the proceedings, and commenced proceedings in the High Court. The Chancery Division granted the defendant's application for a stay, having found that, whilst the defendant's failure to pay an advance on cost involved a breach of the arbitration agreement, the breach had not been repudiatory and the arbitration agreement had not been rendered not inoperative.