Latest Cases

Transport – Private hire vehicle. The claimant Transport for London sought a declaration that the first defendant's, Uber, network private hire vehicles (PHVs) were not equipped with a taximeter in contravention of s 11 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. The Administrative Court, in granting a declaration, held that Uber's PHVs were not equipped with a taximeter as defined by s 11(3) of the Act. The driver's smartphone with a driver's app was not a device for calculating fare by itself or in conjunction with a server and even if it was, the vehicle was not equipped with it. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that EU law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, should be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those in the dispute in the main proceedings, a situation where there was no possibility for a national court to revise a final decision of a court or tribunal made in the course of civil proceedings when that decision was found to be incompatible with an interpretation of EU law upheld by the Court after the date on which that decision had become final, even though such a possibility did exist as regards final decisions of a court or tribunal incompatible with EU law made in the course of administrative proceedings. 

Prison – Prisoner. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against the dismissal of his challenge by way of judicial review of the lawfulness of his recall to prison, under s 254 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as amended. It held, among other things, that the defendant Secretary of State had been lawfully entitled to recall the claimant to prison, and it was clear that the information and conclusions set out in a recall and review report had been adequate. 

Personal Injury – Liability – Contributory negligence. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuer sued as the guardian of a pedestrian who was injured in a road traffic accident after a car driven by the defender struck him, and in which counsel for the defender accepted that primary liability for the accident rested with the defender, the court rejected the pursuer's primary submission that the accident was caused as a result of a deliberate act by the defender and concluded that he was 90% responsible for the accident and that the injured man should bear 10% of the responsibility. 

Immigration – Refugee. The appellant appealed against the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), upholding the respondent Secretary of State's decision to exclude him from protection as a refugee on the basis that he had committed a serious non-political crime in France. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that art 1F of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 could not be construed such that 'serious' should not be qualified by 'particularly'. 

European Union – Insolvency proceedings. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that art 13 of the Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 should be interpreted as meaning that its application was subject to the condition that, after taking account of all the circumstances of the case, the act at issue could not be challenged on the basis of the law governing the act (lex causae). 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 27(1)(d) of Directive (EEC) 92/83 should be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to exempt the alcohol products covered by that directive from the harmonised excise duty when they were used for the production of medicine applied to ethyl alcohol used by an undertaking for cleaning or disinfecting equipment and facilities used in the production of medicines. 

Company – Winding-up. The respondent company had presented a petition to wind up a company. The Chancery Division gave reasons for granting the company's applications, under s 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986, for the validation of certain payments that it intended to make. The court ruled that validation was necessary to enable the company to effect restructuring or other plans (the plans), which presented the only prospect for unsecured creditors to recover debts owed by the company. The court further held that there were valid grounds for the hearings being held in private where to disclose confidential information concerning the company might impact adversely on the delivery of the plans, to the possible detriment of unsecured creditors, among others. 

Child – Care. A local authority contended that a judge had been wrong not to make findings on the evidence that fractures discovered during a post-mortem examination of a ten month old child had been the result of non–accidental injury and to identify the probable perpetrator or pool of possible perpetrators. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the authority's appeal, held that the judge's fact-finding exercise had been fatally flawed in all matters relating to the central and significant issue of the child's injuries, and the judgment rendered unreliable. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The offender, when aged 15 years, had inflicted serious violence causing death, for which he was convicted of murder and a minimum term of 11 years, less time spent on remand, had been imposed. The present proceedings concerned the review of the minimum term. The Administrative Court refused to recommend a reduction of the tariff, as his very good progress could not cross the extremely high hurdle of exceptional and unforeseen.