Latest Cases

Immigration – Detention. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant Somali national's appeal against the dismissal of his claim for judicial review, seeking a declaration and damages in the tort of false imprisonment and for breach of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the basis that he had been unlawfully detained by the defendant Secretary of State. Among things, it held that each of the conclusions reached by the deputy judge that had underpinned his conclusion that the period of the claimant's detention had been reasonable in all the circumstances had been material conclusions he had been fully entitled to have reached on the evidence available to him. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant hospital had been in breach of duty in not administering prophylactic heparin to the claimant on 29 June, following is admission for post operative pain, when on a balance of probabilities it would have prevented the pulmonary embolism which had subsequently occurred. 

Minor – Medical treatment. The Family Division held that it was in the best interests of a seven-year-old child, who had profound disabilities and needs, to grant the declarations sought by the applicant NHS trust, which sought the court's permission to treat the child in accordance with the treating clinicians' clinical discretion, including whether or not to resuscitate her in the event of a collapse. 

Administrative law – Judicial review. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the decision of the defendant housing association with charitable status to decline to approve the exchange of his assured tenancy. On the facts of the case, the defendant had not been exercising a public function in relation to the claimant's tenancy. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. PSLA of £3,100 with total damages of £3,512. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The Chancery Division allowed the defendant company's application to strike out a claim against it where, on the true construction of the relationship between the parties, certain investment arrangements were to be treated as forming part of a bespoke self-invested pension plan. The investments did not fall within the exemption provided by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Collective Investment Schemes) Order 2001 (SI 2001/1062). The paragraphs identified by the defendant would be struck out. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division refused the defendant banks' application to strike out the claimant's second set of proceedings which included defamation claims, on the basis that they were an abuse of process. The court found that although the claimant could have applied at various points to bring earlier publications into the first proceedings, he could not be criticised for not making a claim in respect of any cause of action which had not by then arisen. 

Human rights – Right to a fair hearing. The European Court of Human Rights dismissed the applicant's contention that his right to a fair trial had been violated by the admission of hearsay evidence at his murder trial. Having regard to the existence of other incriminating evidence and of procedural safeguards, it could not be said that the criminal proceedings had been rendered unfair. 

Elections – Parliamentary. The Queen's Bench Division held that due to an admitted breach by the thee elected candidates of r 6 of the Local Elections (Parishes and Communities) England and Wales Rules 2006, SI 3305/06 the election was void and it would be necessary to rerun it. 

Trade mark – Licence. The Chancery Division granted an order for an expedited trial of a dispute concerning intellectual property rights in industrial machines and parts and an exclusive licence in respect of the assembly and sale of whole machines. However, it held that it was not appropriate to grant the defendant company, which claimed to have the exclusive licence, interim injunctive relief against the claimant where the damage to the claimant if an injunction was granted was far more credible and far more likely to be uncompensatable in money terms than any possible damage to the defendant if an injunction was not granted.