Latest Cases

Practice – Appeal. The parties had agreed by consent that an appeal against a judge's decision that the respondent was not being deprived of her liberty should be allowed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, made a consent order. The judge then reserved the matter to himself and delivered a new judgment, which stated that the Court of Appeal had acted ultra vires in making a consent order without a hearing. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the substantive issue and held that the original court had not acted ultra vires. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Chancery Division considered an application for approval of a cross-border merger. It held that, notwithstanding that there were outstanding conditions, the merger was one that the court ought to approve. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection allowed the application of K, the daughter of the patient, G, to be her deputy for property and affairs. Having regard to the need to consider G's wishes under s 4(6)(a) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the views of anyone caring for the G under s 4(7)(a) of the Act, the court held that there was no impediment to K's appointment and that it was in G best interests. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission to extend a development, including by constructing a testing and evaluation track for performance cars. The Planning Court held that conditions had failed to give effect to the authority's intention to impose controls with respect to the variable character of the noise, but refused to quash the planning permission. 

Housing – Homeless person. The European Court of Human Rights held that the determination of the applicant's entitlement to accommodation under Pt VII of the Housing Act 1996 had been a determination of a 'civil right' for the purposes of art 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and the local housing authority's decision that it had discharged its duty to her under Pt VII of the Act had been subject to judicial scrutiny of sufficient scope to satisfy the requirements of art 6(1). 

Limitation of action – Accrual of cause of action. The appellant's claim for unpaid salary had been only partly successful as the judge found that the majority of the claim was time-barred as the contract provided for monthly payment of salary. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed his appeal. The judge had erred in deciding the limitation issue before hearing the appellant's application to strike out the limitation defence and, on the facts, the breach of contract that had given rise to the cause of action had been the respondent's failure to make payment of the whole sum due at the point when the appellant had left its employ. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation of art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights in proceedings leading to the grant of warrants for the applicants' further detention under Sch 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000, in particular, absent express legislative provisions for the appointment of a special advocate. Further, search warrants issued could not be described as excessively wide and they had been necessary in a democratic society, within the meaning of art 8(2) of the Convention. 

Compensation – Crime. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of his claim for compensation for a miscarriage of justice, under s 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it was clear that the Secretary of State's decision to refuse the claimant's claim for compensation had not been vitiated by any public law error and, thus, had not been unlawful on public law grounds. 

Land – Purchase of land. The Technology and Construction Court allowed the claimant company's claim for an outstanding fee due under an oral agreement. On the evidence, there was no basis to limit the fee as the defendant contended. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Chancery Division considered an application by the second defendant to discharge a freezing injunction against him and the third defendant company. The court held that, since there was not a real risk of dissipation of assets, a freezing injunction was not appropriate, and the order would be discharged.