Latest Cases

Magistrates – Jurisdiction. The claimant, who was 14 years old, was charged with robbery on a joint enterprise with three other juveniles. The lay justices decided to decline jurisdiction (the decision) and sent the claimant and her co-accused to the Crown Court. At the plea and case management hearing the claimant pleaded not guilty, but her co-accused pleaded guilty. The judge expressed reservations about the claimant facing trail in the Crown Court alone. The judge adjourned the case and the claimant applied for judicial review of the decision. Allowing the claim, the Administrative Court held that, in the instant case, the justices had failed to properly consider the relevant sentencing guidelines and the claimant's limited role in the alleged offence. 

Criminal law – Harassment. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal by way of case stated against his conviction for harassment following a course of conduct in which he had repeatedly made malicious and untrue allegations regarding the victim to the General Medical Council. On the facts of the case, to find that the course of conduct had been oppressive had been the only possible conclusion for the Crown Court to reach. 

Estoppel – Res judicata. The claimants issued proceedings, seeking damages from the defendant financial adviser following an award by the Financial Ombudsman Service under the scheme established by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The claim was dismissed at first instance by virtue of the doctrine of merger. The judge allowed the appeal and the defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the Act did not exclude the doctrine of res judicata. Accordingly, acceptance of the award precluded the claimants from starting legal proceedings. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant was an employee of JJ who was an independent contractor of the defendant National Trust. The claimant was critically injured whilst felling a tree on National Trust property and sought to bring an action in negligence against the National Trust. The Queen's Bench Division held that the National Trust did not owe the claimant a duty of care in its choice of JJ as its independent contractor. Accordingly, the inevitable consequence was that the action had to be dismissed. 

Arbitration – Award. The claimant brought an application under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1968 claiming that there had been a serious procedural irregularity in the arbitral award made. The Technology and Construction Court held that a tribunal generally had a discretion as to whether it determined that alternative case if it found that the primary case was established and on that basis there had not been a serious irregularity affecting the proceedings or the award within the meaning of ss 68(2)(a), (c) or (d) of the Act. 

Contract – Construction. The Commercial Court considered the interpretation of a contract in the course of a dispute about the sale of cotton to a Bangladeshi company. The court held that, on the true construction of the contract, the Technical Appeal Committee of the International Cotton Association had erred in finding that a clause was incorporated in the contract, which entitled the defendant company to a payment from the claimant pursuant to an invoicing back clause. 

Child – Sexual abuse. In the course of public law children proceedings, concerning allegations of sexual abuse of a 17-month-old girl by her 13-year-old uncle, A, the judge made case management orders that A should not give oral evidence or be cross-examined and refused to give directions relating to the disclosure of a limited number of source documents. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that there had been a clear procedural irregularity in the decision that A should not give oral evidence and there could have been no basis for the essential source documents not being disclosed. 

Town and country planning – Planning permission. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant charity's application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's grant of planning permission, as there was no good purpose that could have been served by requiring the aspect of the decision under challenge to be considered again. 

Adoption – Consent. The Family Division dismissed the applicant father's application for a residence order in respect of the fourth respondent child, F. It granted a placement order in favour of the first respondent local authority and, dispensing with the father's consent, an order pursuant to s 28 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 authorising the authority to place F out of the jurisdiction with the maternal aunt and uncle, TM and KM. In the instant case, those orders had been in F's best interests. F's primary need had been for a carer or carers who were able to meet her emotional needs and were able to afford her stable and consistent care throughout her minority. TM and KM could, but the father could not, meet that primary need. Only a placement for adoption with TM and KM would meet F's welfare needs and nothing else would do. 

Limitation – Availability of limitation defence. The claimant brought a claim against the defendants for damages for fraudulent representations by the first defendant in relation to a tax reduction scheme concerning films. The trial judge held that the defendant had made a number of specific fraudulent representations to the claimant and that the claimant could rely on s 32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 (as amended) to extend the limitation period. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, after clarifying the test for limitation held that, on the facts the claimant had proved his limitation point and the appeal would be dismissed.