Latest Cases

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. PSLA of £2,200 with total damages of £3,330. The claimant suffered musculo-ligamentous strain to the cervical/upper thoracic region as a result of being hit from behind by the defendant's car. 

Housing – Local authority. The Administrative Court allowed the claimants' application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's scheme, reserving 20% of all available lettings for working households and model tenants. The working households element of the scheme amounted to unlawful indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, which required the authority to amend the scheme, but challenges based on discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights, the public sector equality duty and the welfare of children were also upheld. 

Children and young persons – Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a mother's appeal against an order of the court that prevented her from naming her two children (who had been taken into care) 'Cyanide' and 'Preacher'. The naming of a child was an act of parental responsibility, the extent of which could be determined by a local authority. There was no restriction in the Children Act 1989 preventing an authority from overruling a parent in relation to a forename, but that was subject to a parent's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judge had erred in finding that the authority could determine the mother's choice of name pursuant to s 33(3)(b) of the 1989 Act, where the proper route was for the matter to be put before the High Court by way of an application to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under s 100 of that Act. 

Immigration – Practice. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) determined that a consent order, purporting to transfer the claimant's judicial review proceedings commenced in the UT to the High Court, was a nullity. On a proper interpretation of the legislation, the assumption that it would be for the High Court to decide whether the claimant should be permitted to add a claim for a declaration of incompatibility was mistaken. 

Insolvency – Bankruptcy. The Chancery Division held that, providing the claimant gave certain undertakings, it would grant permission to appeal and allow an appeal and set aside a bankruptcy order made in respect of the claimant on the petition of a local authority. The petition had been based on council tax liability orders, which the claimant disputed. The court held that the judge ought to have adjourned the bankruptcy petition in order to await the outcome of the claimant's appeal to the Valuation Tribunal in respect of the liability orders. 

Company – Shares. The Chancery Division made findings concerning the ownership of property belonging to the claimant and the first defendant, who had formerly been in a long-term relationship. Among other things, it made findings concerning the ownership of the second and third defendant companies. 

Trade mark – Mark. The Chancery Division dismissed Cadbury's appeal against the decision of the hearing officer to refuse a request to delete a trade mark that included the use of a certain shade of purple in the packaging of goods. The hearing officer had not made a material error of principle in not accepting that the mark in issue was a series mark, and Cadbury's proposal was fundamentally flawed. 

Industrial training – Levy. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant company's application for judicial review of the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2015, SI 2015/701, in particular, art 7(2) of the Order which, read with art 7(3) and (4) of the Order, set the formula for calculating the amount of levy due in the third of three levy periods. The Order was not ultra vires, unfair or unlawful because it violated classic public law principles. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-trial judgment relief. The Chancery Division, Financial List, granted Barclays Bank plc summary judgment in respect of one but not the other of its claims alleging breach by the issuers of notes of their obligations, which, it contended was an event of default entitling it to accelerate payment of the notes. There was no prospect of the relevant defendants defending the claim in respect of notes issues in September 2007. 

Employment tribunal – Striking out. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the employment tribunal's decision to debar the appellant employer from taking any further part in the proceedings, whether in relation to liability or remedies, in both claims brought by the respondent employees. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had been right to have determined that the employment tribunal had given sufficient reasons for its decision to enable the parties, in particular the employer, to know why they had won or lost.