Latest Cases

Vicarious liability – Crown. The claimant prison catering manager was injured by the negligence of a prisoner. She issued proceedings against the defendant Ministry of Justice (MoJ) for damages for personal injury. The judge dismissed her claims and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the MoJ was vicariously liable for the injury caused to the claimant, as the differences from the normal employment relationship between the prisoner and the MoJ rendered the relationship between them, if anything, closer than that of an employer and its employees. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national arrived in the United Kingdom as a spouse of a person settled and present in the UK. The defendant Home Secretary made two consecutive decisions permitting him to remain on a limited basis. The claimant overstayed his permission by two years and eight months. He made a further application for leave to remain, which the Secretary of State refused. The claimant applied for judicial review of that decision. Dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that it was settled law that considerations under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were embedded in the Immigration Rules such that if the Secretary of State applied those Rules then, ordinarily, art 8 considerations would have been fully catered for. In the instant case, no good arguable grounds had been advanced that there had been factors particular to the claimant that had not been capable of being assessed from within the existing framework of Rules and which therefore needed to be assessed outside of the Rules. Further, the Secretary of State had taken into account all of the factors and matters which had been relevant to the claimant. Finally, there had been no error of law in the approach adopted by the Secretary of State to the question of whether there had been insurmountable obstacles to relocation. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Afghan national applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. That application was refused and he appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT). Permission to appeal to the defendant Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) was refused by both the FTT and the UT. The claimant brought a claim for judicial review of the UT's decision. The High Court refused to grant a stay on his removal pending consideration of that claim and he was removed to Afghanistan. Subsequently, the claimant's judicial review application was granted. The claimant applied for an order that the interested party Secretary of State should take all reasonable steps to secure his return to the UK (the order). The Administrative Court ruled that that application had been premature. The court would not make the order at the present time, but would give the claimant permission to restore the instant application if: (i) the UT found that there had been an error of law and that it would be desirable to admit further evidence from the claimant; or (ii) the UT found merit in the claimant's argument that his right of appeal as a matter of law would be jeopardised by his absence from the UK. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. A planning inspector granted the appellant company planning permission for a four-turbine wind farm. The judge quashed that decision and the appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been correct in her conclusion that Parliament's intention in enacting s 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 had been that decision-makers should give 'considerable importance and weight' to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings when carrying out the required balancing exercise and that the inspector had not done so. 

Contract – Construction. The claimant sold a solicitor's practice to the first defendant. The practice was conducted through the second defendant, an LLP. The claimant was the sole member of the LLP. A dispute arose and the claimant brought a claim against the first defendant for money owed and the first defendant counterclaimed. The Mercantile Court held that subject to interest, and apportionment between the defendants. The net amount of exactly £45,000 was due to the claimant 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Supreme Court ruled on matters arising from proceedings concerning the right of Marks and Spencer plc (M&S) to claim group relief in respect of losses sustained by two of their subsidiaries resident in Germany and Belgium respectively. 

Mortgage – Debt. The Chancery Division considered the interpretation of s 77A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which required creditors to provide debtors with statements in relation to regulated fixed-sum credit agreements. The court held that, where a creditor had provided the debtor with a non-compliant statement, the period of non-compliance commenced on a date to be calculated as if no statement had been served at all, and the period of non-compliance began on the day following the last day on which a compliant statement could have been given. 

Nuisance – Statutory nuisance. The instant proceedings arose out of the service of an abatement notice (the notice) by the interested party local authority on the claimant Royal British Legion Club. The claimant appealed against the notice and the matter was dealt with at a trial before the defendant Magistrates' Court in front of a district judge. The judge found that the notice had been justified and reasonable and the claimant had not used the best practical means to counteract the nuisance (the first disputed decision). However, he ordered that each side should pay its own costs (the second disputed decision). Dismissing the claimant's claim for judicial review of the first and second disputed decisions, the Administrative Court held that: (i) the instant case had been an exceptional case where, despite the fact that the claimant had been the winning party, it should be able to bring judicial review proceedings; however, (ii) the district judge's findings had not been irrational, perverse or unreasonable. 

Evidence – Foreign tribunal. Dutch authorities requested assistance for the seizure of certain documentary evidence for use in criminal proceedings against the claimant. The claimant sought judicial review of the judge's decision to permit retention of seized material. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the judge's approach to the precondition of substantial relevance could not be criticised. It was not open to the claimant to seek to re-argue the challenge to the judge's power to transmit the material, as he had had two prior opportunities and the judge had been perfectly entitled to be satisfied that digital material had been of substantial relevance to the Dutch proceedings for continuity reasons. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The judge requested a district court in the Czech Republic to assume jurisdiction in relation to care proceedings concerning a 19-month-old boy in accordance with art 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003. The local authority and the children's guardian appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that, having regard to its conclusions about the benefits of judicial continuity and the judge's erroneous formulation of legal policy, the preliminary issue as to art 15 of the Regulation should have been decided in favour of the English court retaining jurisdiction.