Discrimination

Chisholm v D & R Hankins (Manea) Ltd

Negligence – Duty to take care. The defendant employer had breached its duty of care by failing sufficiently to risk assess the task of cleaning and tipping a tipper truck trailer, and also by failing to implement and enforce safe systems of work in respect of those tasks. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division allowed the claimant's claim arising from his injury when cleaning out the trailer within the vicinity of high voltage overhead power lines, but reduced damages by 25% to take account of the claimant's contributory negligence.

Re SJ

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The applicant was successful in its application for the authorisation of medical treatment for the first respondent. The first respondent was suffering from sepsis, secondary to a large necrotic infected Grade 4 sacral pressure sore that was unable to heal due to constant contamination by faeces which in turn was caused by incontinence. The Court of Protection permitted the insertion of a colostomy bag to prevent further infection, as any risks associated with the procedure were outweighed by the risk of death in the absence of treatment.

Trail Riders Fellowship v Hampshire County Court

Road traffic – Regulation of traffic. The traffic authority's duty of securing the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic, as set out in s 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, was not given primacy but was a qualified duty which had to be read with the factors in s 122(2) of that Act. Having considered all the relevant factors, the Administrative Court dismissed the claimant organisation's application to quash, wholly or in part, the defendant local authority's traffic regulation order on the basis that none of the grounds relied on by the claimant were made out.

Gosvenor London Ltd v Aygun Aluminium UK Ltd

Execution – Stay. The appellant company's appeal against a stay of execution failed. The stay had been imposed along with judgment in favour of the appellant, in an action to enforce the decision of an adjudicator in a construction dispute. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been entitled to come to the view that he had done and, in the exercise of his discretion, to grant a stay of execution.

My Community Space v Ipswich Borough Council

Rates – Non-domestic rates. There was no evidential basis for the judge's factual finding that the appellant's charitable objects had been changed after and in response to a letter, but there was for her conclusion that adverts had appeared in the local press on six occasions and she had given sufficient reasons for rejecting the claimant's evidence. The Administrative Court further held that, in determining that properties had not been used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes with respect to non-domestic rates, the judge had not erred in law.

R v Stubbs; R v Davis; R v Evans

Judge – Appeal. A judge who had presided at an aborted trial ought to have recused himself from sitting on an appeal against conviction, following their conviction on the same charges at a further trial. The Privy Council, in allowing the appellants' appeals, held that the judge's decisions would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there had been a real possibility that he had pre-judged issues which fell for consideration on the appeal and that the appellants had not had the appearance of a fresh tribunal of three judges to consider their appeals.

R (on the application of Lazarov) v Westminster Magistrates Court

Extradition – Appeal. The errors in the judgment on the claimant's extradition to Bulgaria had the cumulative effect that the reasons simply could not be considered as addressing the true and actual facts of the case at all, and the decision was tantamount to a nullity. As the Administrative Court could only allow the appeal if the case could only have been properly decided against extradition, it granted the claimant's application for judicial review, while stressing that the judgment and decision were no warrant or precedent for the incursion of judicial review into the field of extradition.

AXA S.A. v Genworth Financial International Holdings, Inc. and others

Practice – Striking out. The application of the CPR Pt 20 defendants to strike out the defendant companies' CPR Pt 20 claim against them succeeded, in a dispute concerning the acquisition of companies from the first defendant by the claimant company. The Commercial Court held that the CPR Pt 20 claim was an abuse of the declaratory form of relief and the proper course was to strike it out in its entirety.

Bannerman Town, Millars and John Millars Eluthera Association v Eluthera Properties Ltd

Land – Title. Neither of the surviving competitors in the proceedings had established such title in respect of a tract of land on the island of Eleuthera as ought to be reflected in a certificate granted under the Quieting Titles Act 1959. Accordingly, the Privy Council allowed the appellant's appeal insofar as the respondent's petition for the grant of certificate of title would be dismissed.

Cadbury UK Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. intervening)

Trade mark – Mark. The appeal of the appellant company, Cadbury, against a finding of the Registrar of Trade Marks, failed. Cadbury had sought to delete one of two specifications in a mark that it owned, concerning the use of the colour purple in its chocolate products. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the mark did not consist of a series of marks, and that it was not a permissible registration of more than one mark within a single registration.

LM v KD

Husband wife – Separation. In a case relating to two parties of Italian origin, who were married, but separated, the English court, despite being the court second seized, had jurisdiction in relation to a school fees order, child maintenance and the sale of a London property. Accordingly, the Family Division dismissed the applicant husband's appeals against, among other things, a ruling refusing a stay of the respondent wife's application under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 for the sale of a London property.

*R (on the application of BA) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

National Health Service – Duty to provide healthcare services. The Secretary of State had not been in breach of any public law duty in forming the view that what was necessary to meet all reasonable requirements for the allocation of kidney organs for the purpose of transplantation was an allocation which prioritised persons ordinarily resident in England over those not ordinarily resident. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, affirmed the Divisional Court's decision, dismissing the application for judicial review by the claimant Ghanaian national who suffered from end-stage kidney disease of para 4 of the NHS Blood and Transplant (Gwaed a Thrawsblaniadau'r GIG) (England) Directions 2005.

R (on the application of MP) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening)

National Health Service – Charges. The defendant Secretary of State was not required to consult publicly before amending the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Amendment Regulations 2017, SI 2017/756, and imposing a requirement that advance payment for treatment be made, or requiring that records be kept of chargeable individuals. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's application for judicial review, further held that the Secretary of State had complied with his duties under s 149 of the Equality Act 2010 Act and the National Health Service Act 2006.

Hopkinson and others v Towergate Financial (Group) Ltd and other companies

Contract – Construction. The appeal concerned the true construction of the indemnity provisions in a share sale agreement, which provided for the sale of the entire share capital of a company that provided financial advice to retail customers. The defendants (the indemnifying parties) had argued that the claimants had not complied with the requirements for giving notice of their indemnity claim. The dispute concerned the requirement (in the agreement) for notice to be given 'specifying the details and circumstances giving rise to the Claims or Claims and an estimate in good faith of the total amount of such Claim or Claims' (the bracketed words). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled, among other things, that the word 'Claim' in the bracketed words did not extend to an indemnity claim, as the defendants had contended. Accordingly, the court dismissed their appeal against the dismissal of their application for summary judgment on the claimants' indemnity claim, which arose out of two reviews required by the Financial Conduct Authority under s 166 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

PF (International) Ltd v Financial Conduct Authority

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority. Pursuant to its power under r 5(5) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, SI 2008/2698, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)(the tribunal) was not obliged to grant the suspension of a decision in respect of which a reference had been made if it was satisfied that to do so would not prejudice the interests of consumers. It was necessary for the tribunal to carry out a balancing exercise in light of all relevant factors and decide whether in all the circumstances it was in the interests of justice to grant the application. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the applicant company's application to suspend the variation by the Financial Conduct Authority of the permission it had granted to the applicant in relation to its right to exercise lender's rights and duties under regulated credit agreements.

*R (on the application of Worthington) v HM Senior Coroner for the County of Cumbria

Coroner – Inquest. The defendant coroner in the inquest into the death of Poppi Worthington had not erred in law in including references to anal penetrationin the section of his review which concerned conclusion as to death and in his record of inquest. The Divisional Court, in dismissing her father's application for judicial review, held that the coroner's review had been exemplary, he had considered and analysed the evidence with particular care, and made findings of fact which were unchallengeable.

Wightman and others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

European Union – 'Brexit'. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) had to be interpreted as meaning that, where a member state had notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the EU, that article allowed that member state - for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that member state and the EU had not entered into force or, if no such agreement had been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in art 50(3), possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, had not expired - to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the member state concerned had taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The Court of Justice of the European Union so ruled in a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 50 TEU in proceedings regarding the possibility of unilaterally revoking the notification of the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU.

Gill and another v Brar and another

Loan – Loan agreement. The claimants' claim succeeded, in a dispute concerning the purchase of property. The claimants alleged that they had loaned £477,522 to the defendants in order to facilitate the purchase, and sought the return of that sum. The Chancery Division held that the claimants' payment had not been made in satisfaction of debts that the claimants' family had owed to the defendants.

*Her Royal Highness Tessy Princess of Luxembourg, Princess of Nassau and Princess of Bourbon-Parma v His Royal Highness Louis Xavier Marie Guillaume Prince of Luxembourg, Prince of Nassau and Prince of Bourbon-Parma and another

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The wife's application for a property adjustment order was dismissed, as the husband did not own a share of the beneficial interest in the former matrimonial home, but a post-nuptial settlement was varied to provide the wife and the children with a licence to occupy that property terminable on six months' notice. The Family Court further made an order for nominal spousal maintenance and for child periodical payments in the sum of £4,000 per annum per child.

Li v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration – Entry clearance. For the purposes of para 320(7B)(d) of the Immigration Rules, submitting a false document would only be deception if the applicant submitted the document knowing that it was false and the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had erred in its conclusion that it did not matter if it had been the dishonesty of the applicant or a third party. However, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that it had been patently open to the Secretary of State to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that the appellant had knowingly submitted false documents.

User menu

BLAGG - Bar Lesbian and Gay Group

Fair Access to Professional Careers: A progress report

Diversity in the Courts

End of term report

More women become judges

Association of Women Barristers

DPP praises equality and diversity rule

The right to be open at the Bar

COMBAR takes positive action

Diversity in the legal profession

Chair's Column

News

Recruitment & Announcements

Latest Cases

Footer menu