Latest Cases

Human rights – Right to life. The Supreme Court held that the defendant Secretaries of State had not erred in holding that there was no legal duty on them to hold an inquiry into the deaths of 24 civilians, shot by Scots Guards during the Malayan Emergency in 1943, pre European Convention on Human Rights. 

Legal aid – Entitlement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Lord Chancellor's appeal against a declaration that the introduction of a proposed residency test for the provision of civil legal aid was unlawful. The Lord Chancellor had not acted ultra vires his powers in accordance with the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and it could not be said that a residency test was not manifestly without reasonable foundation. 

Education – School. The Administrative Court, in allowing the claimant's judicial review application, held that an assertion in the defendant Secretary of State's GCSE subject content for religious studies was materially misleading. It told its readers that such a GCSE would fulfil the entirety of the state's religious education duties, which was an error of law in her interpretation of the education statutes. 

Negligence – Contributory negligence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that the judge's assessment of how, justly and equitably, the claimant's damages should be reduced to reflect her share in the responsibility for the grievous injury which she had sustained when struck by a car driven by the defendant, had been squarely within the range of reasonable decision-making. 

Immigration – Leave to remain – Fresh claim – Right to family life. Court of Session: Granting a judicial review petition by a Zimbabwean national who applied for leave to remain in the UK based on his being in a genuine and subsisting relationship with his partner and having close relationships with his children and grandchildren, and who challenged the refusal to consider his application as a fresh human rights claim, the court held that the decision letter did not demonstrate that the decision maker applied the test correctly as it did not see the required anxious scrutiny in considering all points which might tell in favour of the petitioner. 

Personal Injury – Liability – Contributory negligence. Court of Session: In an action in which a pedestrian sought reparation for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, having been struck by a van driven by the first defender as she was crossing a road from behind a bus, the court, after holding that the defender failed to take reasonable care as he approached the locus of the accident and that had he reduced his speed to one which the court considered reasonable in the circumstances then the accident would have been avoided, concluded that a 50-50 apportionment of liability between the pursuer and the defenders was appropriate. 

Mortgage – Loan secured by mortgage. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant borrowers' appeal, affirmed the judge's decision, which itself had affirmed the decision of a district judge, that it was an abuse of process to seek to litigate questions arising out of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 more than two years after the making of an order for possession. Issue estoppel could not be set up against statutory provisions enacted for the protection of certain vulnerable categories of person or for the protection of others who engaged in dealings with such persons, but it did not follow that the respondent lender could not rely on abuse of process. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court refused an application for direct contact with a child, who had been conceived through artificial insemination at the respondent civil partners' home, with the first respondent using the applicant's sperm. Indirect contact once a year met the child's present welfare needs to have information about her biological father. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following the giving of the main judgment in the case (see [2015] All ER (D) 117 (Nov)), the Chancery Division considered that it was inappropriate for the court to give an indication that it would have been willing to order an increase in the defendant's budget had such an application been made. An interim payment on account of costs would be directed of about 80% of 70% of the defendant's approved budget. 

Injunction – Interim. The Chancery Division considered two applications by the mobile operator Lebara in the course of a dispute about the blocking of attempts by the customers of the defendant companies to use a mobile service provided by Lebara. The court held that, in the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to allow either application.