Latest Cases

Damages – Personal injury. The Queen's Bench Division held that it had been proved on the evidence that the deceased had suffered an actionable injury as a result of the totality of his exposure to asbestos, to which the defendant had made a material contribution and there was no need to prove that the contribution of itself had given rise to a discernible or measurable injury. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the First-tier Tribunal (Tax) (the FTT) had had no jurisdiction to make an express order that the costs between the parties be shared, as it had fallen within the scope of the prohibition under r 10 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 and neither of the exceptions, wasted costs or unreasonable behaviour were operating. 

Shipping – Charterparty. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appellant charterer's appeal, held that the arrest of the respondent owner's vessel, due to a dispute between the receiver of cargo and the sub-sub charterer, could not be regarded as having been occasioned by the charterer's agents in the sense in which that word had been used in the time charter. 

National Health Service – Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints. The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant wife of the deceased against a finding of the Court of Appeal that the Complaints Commissioner of Northern Ireland did not have the power to recommend monetary redress at all in a case where the Commissioner had found failings in the medical practice where the deceased had been treated. The court held, among other things, that it could not have been proper for the Commissioner to recommend a payment of money and to threaten to report on the respondent's failure to pay it. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Secretary of State's appeal, held that the respondent Somalian national's circumstances were not such as could preclude his removal to Somalia on grounds under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the evidence could not, in any event, support a finding of fact that the respondent would find himself living in an internally displaced person camp. 

Highway – Definitive map. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's challenge to the decision of the inspector for the defendant Secretary of State, confirming the local planning authority's order modifying the area definitive rights of way map to show footpaths, with a modification. The evidence provided a rational basis for the inspector's conclusion and his conclusion had not needed more extensive reasoning. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court allowed the claimants' application to quash the decision of the inspector for the first defendant Secretary of State, allowing the second defendant's appeal and granting planning permission for an on-shore office and warehouse building. The inspector had not had due regard to the public sector equality duty and there had been a breach of natural justice/procedural fairness by failing to consider another site. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant local authority's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision that advice given by a primary authority had been correct and confirming its direction stopping the authority from taking enforcement action with respect to the provision of sanitary appliances free of charge. The advice had not been correct and the error had been material. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The Privy Council dismissed both an appeal and a cross-appeal concerning the respondent's dismissal from his employment with the appellant. It considered whether there had been constructive dismissal, whether the respondent's conduct had justified dismissal, and whether the Supreme Court of Mauritius had miscalculated the remuneration package. 

Town and country planning – Building of special architectural or historic interest. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a challenge by way of judicial review regarding the proposed Ordsall Chord elevated railway in Manchester. Neither the planning inspector in recommending the scheme, nor the Secretaries of State in having approved the scheme, had failed to act consistently with a decision maker's statutory duties relating to listed buildings and conservation areas and nor had the Secretaries of State misunderstood or misapplied relevant national policy and guidance.