Latest Cases

Libel and slander – Publication. Following her conviction for harassment the claimant brought a libel action against the defendant publisher for words published in an online article which was later taken down. When the defendant applied to strike out the action, the Queen's Bench Division allowed the claim on the basis that the words were not capable of amounting to defamation and, in any event, there was nothing of value to the claimant which she could hope to achieve by a reformulation of her claim in the action to embrace a claim based on the parts of the article which purported to report the allegations of harassment. 

Limitation of action – Period of limitation. The Supreme Court held that a stranger to a trust who was liable to account on the grounds of dishonest assistance in a breach of trust or knowing receipt of trust assets was not a trustee for the purposes of s 21(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1980. The court further held that an action 'in respect of' any fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which the trustee was a party or privy did not include an action against a party which was not itself a trustee. 

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. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants sought the continuation of a freezing order that had been made against the defendants to freeze money that could potentially have been used to cover the claimants' costs. The claimants made an application, seeking to have the freezing order extended. The Chancery Division held that the order would not be continued, as the court had never had jurisdiction to make a freezing order to secure the rights which the claimants might in due course acquire pursuant to an order for costs. Consequently, the order would not be continued and the action dismissed. 

Housing – Persons in need of care and attention. Philip suffered a number of disabilities and had, since a young age been in foster care pursuant to the Children Act 1989. Although he had lived with his carers in South Gloucestershire, the local authority that had had responsibility for providing his care had been Wiltshire. As Philip approached the age of 18, questions were raised as to which authority would be responsible for the provision of his care pursuant to s 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, it having previously been determined that he should live as close as possible to his family in Cornwall. On turning 18, he moved to residential accommodation in Somerset. The Secretary of State had determined that Philip's place of ordinary residence was Cornwall. Cornwall Council had unsuccessfully sought judicial review of that decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal, finding that the Secretary of State had applied the wrong test. On remaking the decision, the court found that South Gloucestershire had been Philip's place of ordinary residence. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant, who had a history of mental health issues, sustained his head injuries outside the Accident and Emergency Department whilst en route from a police station to hospital pursuant to being 'sectioned' under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983. He brought a clam against the defendant NHS trust. The Queen's Bench Division held that the trust was liable as the security guards had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the claimant; and that failure caused him to suffer injury. 

Citizenship – United Kingdom citizenship. The claimant was a national of Botswana who had served in the British Army. He applied for naturalisation as a British citizen. The defendant Secretary of State refused his application and upheld that decision on review (the decisions) on the grounds that she was not satisfied that the claimant met the 'good character' requirement for naturalisation within para 1(1) of sch 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981 because he had a conviction for exceeding a temporary 50 mph speed limit. Allowing his claim for judicial review, the Administrative Court held that the Secretary of State had not properly weighed in the balance the strong countervailing evidence of the claimant's good character against the fact of his conviction, in order to make an overall assessment of his character, as was required by law. 

Landlord and tenant – Rent. The proceedings concerned the proper construction of a rent review clause contained in two 99-year building leases of commercial property. The Chancery Division held that, on the proper construction of the clause, where a landlord had elected not to instigate a rent review, the rent remained at the previous increased level. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The defendant construction company employed the claimant under a number of separate orders to undertake tendered works for the refurbishment of properties. The claimant contended that all of the sub-contract works were ordered under one overarching order. However, the defendant contended that the main order had never been accepted by the claimant and that the all works had been undertaken under separate contracts. An adjudicator, having found that he had jurisdiction, made an award in favour of the claimant. The claimant sought to enforce the award. The Technology and Construction Court, in dismissing the claim, held that, on the facts, the adjudicator had had no jurisdiction to decide the disputes arising under the separate contracts, each with different terms and subject matter. It followed that the claimant was unable to enforce the adjudicator's award in its favour. 

Broadcasting – Television. Sky provided premium pay TV services which showed major sporting events such as premier league football matches. Ofcom investigated and found that Sky's practices in restricting wholesale access by Sky's competitors to those channels was prejudicial to fair and effective competition. It also made adverse findings in respect of the pricing models that Sky had adopted. Ofcom exercised its jurisdiction under s 316 of the Communications Act 2003 to impose conditions on Sky's broadcasting licences. The Competition Appeal Tribunal dismissed Sky's appeal against Ofcom's jurisdiction to impose conditions but allowed its appeal on the pricing issue. Sky appealed the jurisdiction point. Sky's competitors also appealed against the CAT's refusal to consider other issues relating to pricing. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that Ofcom did have jurisdiction under s 316 of the Act and held that the CAT had erred in not considering further issues relating to pricing. The matter was remitted.