Latest Cases

Solicitor – Duty. The claimant's predecessor, Abbey, and a borrower instructed the defendant solicitors' firm to act in connection with the purchase of a property. The purchase price was paid to another solicitors' firm and was lost. Abbey issued proceedings against the defendant for breach of trust. The judge concluded that the defendant should be wholly relieved from liability, under s 61 of the Trustee Act 1925. Abbey appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the defendant's failures had been unreasonable and sufficiently connected with Abbey's loss such that it would not be fair to excuse the defendant from liability. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered an issue of alleged age discrimination with regard to the levels of pension awarded to two civil servants. The EAT held that the employment tribunal had not used the appropriate comparator when establishing whether discrimination had occurred, and hence the case would be remitted to the original tribunal. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. When the first claimant failed to comply with an unless order, the case against the defendants was automatically struck out. The claimants applied to the court to have the claim reinstated. The judge refused the application and the claimants appealed. The only basis on which the appeal was pursued was that the automatic strike out provisions had not been triggered as there had been no substantial breach of the unless order. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the appeal on many bases but particularly in the interests of finality in litigation. 

Prison – Release on licence. The claimant was convicted of offences under the Terrorism Act 2006. On release from prison, a number of conditions were attached to his licence. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of two of the conditions, holding that the conditions were not in themselves ultra vires and that they were manifestly for the purposes of protecting the public and preventing re-offending and were accordingly justified. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The defendant Secretary of State had arranged for the claimant asylum seeker to be removed to Cyprus, as he had initially claimed asylum in that member state before making his claim in the United Kingdom. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision. Dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that in the absence of a human rights claim of substance, the claimant's legitimate public law interests had been protected by the assumption that it would not matter to the outcome where in the Community an asylum application was heard. The discretion in art 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003 had been a matter solely between the UK and Cyprus, not justiciable in the instant court at the insistence of the claimant. 

Social Security – Benefit. The applicants were single mothers, or the children of single mothers, who had sought judicial review of the government's introduction of a cap on welfare benefits as being particularly disadvantageous to women in general and to women escaping domestic violence in particular. The Divisional Court had dismissed their application. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed their appeal on the grounds that the Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/2994, had not infringed any of, or a combination of, arts 8, 14 and art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, there had been no infringement of art 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Disclosure against persons not parties to proceedings. In the context of proceedings seeking damages from the Serious Frauds Office, the judge ordered disclosure of five reports prepared by the appellant chartered accountants and joint liquidators. They appealed on the basis that the judge had erred in finding that the reports were not protected by litigation privilege. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had not mischaracterised the proper approach and that there was no basis on which to legitimately differ from the judge's assessment that the dominant purpose test had not been satisfied. 

Order – Application to set aside order. The Technology and Construction Court set aside an order granting a claimant an extension of time to serve its claim regarding a building dispute and dismissed the claim where it had not been validly served within the time of validity of the claim form. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The patient, ES, suffered from dementia and was cared for in a series of residential care homes one of which was run by the applicant local authority. The local authority applied for the appointment of a panel deputy to manage her financial affairs after it was discovered that ES's children had possibly been mismanaging her finances. The Court of Protection, in its discretion, appointed a solicitor from ES's family firm of solicitors in order to act as a deputy. 

Immigration – Asylum. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a failed Iranian asylum seeker, challenging a decision not to treat his further submissions as a fresh claim, the court rejected submissions that the decision maker simply formed his own view and assumed that another immigration judge would agree with him, that it was incumbent on him to make enquiries about the authenticity of an Iranian court summons, and that he erred in relying on an immigration judge's findings on credibility.