Local authority – Education. The defendant local authority's policies, that related to the funding of schools to deliver the special educational provision to children with special educational needs and disabilities, were not in breach of the local authority's duty under s 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014, nor in breach of its other statutory duties, duties of consultation and the public sector equality duty. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the claimant children's claim.
Guarantee – Construction. The underlying dispute between the parties concerned a claim by the first and second defendant companies that the claimant company had deducted discounts when making payments to them under contracts for the provision of goods and services in Bangladesh. The claimant had failed to establish a good arguable case that it could found jurisdiction against the first and second defendant companies on the jurisdiction provisions of a guarantee annexed to the contracts for the provision of goods and services. Accordingly, the Commercial Court held, among other things, that the claimant's claim for jurisdiction before the English courts failed.
Road traffic – Private hire vehicle. It was abundantly clear that the defendant court had not granted a provisional or probationary licence without considering whether Uber had been, at the time of the hearing, a fit and proper person. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, further rejected the contention that decision was tainted by actual or apparent bias by reason of the judge's husband's financial relationship with Uber.
Advertisement – Control. The defendant regulators had neither made an error of law, nor acted irrationally, in reaching a decision that the average consumer was unlikely to be misled by the unqualified use of the word fibre in advertisements for part-fibre broadband services targeted at consumers. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the claimant company's claim for judicial review of the defendants' decision.
Estoppel – Proprietary estoppel. The claimant son had established an equity in his favour in relation to his claim for an interest in a dairy farm owned by his defendant parents. Accordingly, the Chancery division held that the appropriate remedy to satisfy the claimant's equity was a lump sum payment which reflected, among other things, 50% after tax of the market value of the dairy farming business, and 40% after tax of the market value of the freehold land and buildings at the farm.