Latest Cases

Criminal evidence – Expert evidence – Admissibility. High Court of Justiciary: At a preliminary hearing to determine the admissibility of case linkage analysis (CLA) evidence in appeal proceedings in respect of a murder conviction, the court concluded that CLA evidence, in its present state of development, did not possess the necessary qualities to render it admissible in court, either before a jury or in appellate proceedings. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The claimant's estate brought the proceedings, seeking damages for injury and loss said to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant's medical and midwifery staff. In particular, he contended that the negligence of a doctor, B, had caused the injuries in breach of duty. The Queen's Bench Division held that, on the evidence available to B, B had been entitled to proceed in the way that she had done without recourse to a more senior doctor, and had accordingly not been in breach of duty. 

Fire brigade – Provision of. The claimant local authorities and resident sought judicial review of the defendants' decisions closing ten London fire stations, decommissioning fire appliances and reducing the number of fire-fighters in London. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that a comprehensive risk assessment of all foreseeable risks had not needed to be carried out before considering how those risks were to be addressed. Further, the consultation process had not been flawed, the public sector equality duty had not been breached and the Mayor had not misdirected himself. 

Employment – Discrimination. The proceedings concerned the first case relating to the equal terms under the Equality Act 2010. Two female port assistants brought a claim against the employer before the employment tribunal, alleging that they were entitled to be paid the same as output clerks, one of whom was a male, for performing like work. The tribunal rejected the employer's application to strike out the claim after the employees had conceded that they did not seek to contend that they had been directly discriminated against. The employer appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the appeal, held that there remained a prima facie case of discrimination to be answered on the facts. Accordingly, the tribunal had been entitled to find as it had. 

Will – Husband of deceased being granted letter of administration in respect of deceased's estate. The claimant sought revocation of an existing grant of letters of administration to the deceased's husband in respect of a deceased's estate, on the ground that the deceased had not died intestate, but that she had previously made a will in Mumbai. The Chancery Division, in dismissing claimant's claim, held that, on the evidence, the deceased had not signed the will and the signature on the document had been forged. 

Employment – Redundancy. Servisair UK Ltd dismissed certain employees on grounds of redundancy. The employees brought proceedings before the employment tribunal (the tribunal) which held that the dismissals had been unfair as there had been no redundancy situation and therefore no potentially fair reason for the employees' dismissals. Servisair appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal on the basis that the tribunal judge had erred in her statement and application of the redundancy test as set out in Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd[1999] IRLR 562. The matter was remitted to be heard afresh by a new tribunal. 

Privilege – Public interest immunity. The claimant had previously provided a vehicle recovery and breakdown service to the defendant Chief Constable. The defendant decided that the claimant's position needed security clearance and subsequently refused the claimant clearance. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings and the instant application concerned an application for further discovery. The defendant refused disclosure on public interest immunity grounds. The Administrative Court held that, although the claimant could make meaningful representations if he could see the withheld material, the defendant had been entitled to withhold disclosure on public interest grounds. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimants were nationals of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the DRC). R was a failed asylum seeker liable to deportation and P was a criminal deportee. They sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to deport them to the DRC. The Administrative Court held that the decision that R would not be at risk of treatment contrary to art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been reasonable, rational and based on objective country origin information. However, there was a real and substantial risk that P would be subjected to further imprisonment and ill-treatment if returned. 

Solemn procedure – Judge's charge – Concert. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal against conviction by an appellant (the second accused) who was charged, together with three co-accused, with murder, and convicted of murder along with the first accused, the court upheld an argument that in giving directions in relation to the appellant and first accused on the assumption that the jury accepted they were involved in a concerted attack, the trial judge had in the appellant's case wrongly excluded from the jury's consideration a verdict of culpable homicide in circumstances where they decided to return a verdict of murder against the first accused. 

Employment – Worker. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employees' appeal, held that, the employment tribunal had correctly construed the word 'temporary' in the Agency Workers Regulations 2010, SI 2010/93, to mean 'not permanent' and in holding that, on the facts, the employees had been placed by the first respondent with the second respondent on a permanent, and not a temporary, basis and, accordingly, fell outside the scope of those Regulations.