Latest Cases

Child – Protection. A mother had been charged with offences of infanticide and wounding. She had surviving children. The local authority had obtained a reporting restriction order due to concerns that the media was about to reveal details of the case on the television. Subsequently, the authority applied to extend the order until the youngest child reached the age of 18 in order to protect the welfare of the children. The media agreed that, due to the exceptional circumstances of the case and the risk to the children, that the mother should remain anonymous. The Family Division of the High Court gave its judgment specifying what could, and could not, be reported in order to protect the children. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court considered a dispute in a building contract, revolving around the refusal of the defendant building contractor to sign a novation agreement in the course of development work. The claimant company appealed against the decision of an adjudicator. In dismissing that appeal, the court held, among other things, that the novation agreement had not been properly executed and would not be considered binding. 

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary panel. The conduct and competence committee of the defendant Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) found the appellant nurses guilty of misconduct and struck them off the register of nurses. At the hearing, the committee admitted anonymous hearsay evidence adduced by the NMC. The Administrative Court held that, although the anonymous evidence should not have been admitted, the committee's reasoning and conclusions on the critical aspects of its findings were unassailable. Accordingly, it dismissed the appellants appeals against the committee's findings, save that the findings which had depended in part on the anonymous evidence would be quashed. 

Employment – Dismissal. The employees were dismisses following a transfer of undertakings under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE). They brought successful claims before an employment tribunal and before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The employer appealed on the basis that the decision to dismiss was an economic technical or organisational reason. The Court of Appeal Civil Division held that it was not an economic, technical or organisational decision within reg 7 of TUPE decision and the dismissal had been automatically unfair. 

Landlord and tenant – Fixtures. The claimant landlord issued proceedings against the defendant tenant, contending that it did not have the right to deal with tenant's fixtures during the currency of the lease term. The judge held that the tenant had had such right and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, in allowing the appeal, held that there was no rule of law that especially clear words had to be used in a lease in order for a tenant's right to remove fixtures at any point during the term to be validly ousted. Accordingly, on the proper construction of the lease, the tenant was precluded from removing any tenant's fixtures, save as permitted by the proviso in the lease. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. NL was the eight child of the mother who had a history of substance abuse and involvement of social services with her previous seven children. On the evidence of a hastily instructed independent expert, the justices made a decision to separate the mother and NL and an interim care order was made. The mother appealed and the Family Division held that due to procedural unfairness the decision could not stand and that NL was to be returned to his mother forthwith. 

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. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Portuguese national was subject to a deportation order and detained pending deportation. He appealed unsuccessfully on human rights grounds. Subsequently, he sought to apply for revocation of the deportation order on the basis of change of circumstances. The Secretary of State refused the application and certified, pursuant to Reg 26(5) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1003, the grounds relied on as having been previously considered in an earlier appeal. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review as the Regulations were not incompatible with either European Union law or the European Convention on Human Rights and the claimant's detention had not been unlawful. However, the certification decision would be quashed as it had been flawed for want of legally adequate reasons. 

Coroner – Inquest. The claimant was the widow of AL who died in London from radiation poisoning. She sought judicial review of the refusal by the defendant Secretary of State to order the setting up of a statutory inquiry under s 1(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005 into the circumstances of Al's death (the decision). The Secretary of State had been asked to set up such an inquiry by the first interested party Assistant Coroner (the Coroner), who was the judge appointed to conduct the inquest into AL's death. Allowing the claim, the Divisional Court held that taking everything together, the reasons given by the Secretary of State for refusing the Coroner's request to set up a statutory inquiry had not provided a rational basis for the decision. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement of planning control. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to take no further action in respect of a development which was in breach of planning permission as that decision had been perverse and there had been a failure to have proper regard to relevant factors set out in the authority's earlier assessments.