Latest Cases

Contract – Rectification. As the parties' common intention, demonstrated by the communications between them and continuing up to the execution of the share sale and purchase agreement, had not been given effect in the share sale and purchase agreement and the disclosure letter, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a decision to rectify the documents in order to give full effect to the common intention of the parties.

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary committee. The appellant osteopath failed in his appeal against a decision of the professional conduct committee of the General Osteopathic Council (the panel) to strike him off the Register of Osteopaths for unacceptable professional conduct, concerning his sexual activity with a patient. The Administrative Court held that, in such cases which struck at the heart of the trust put into the profession by the public, the protection of the reputation of the profession meant that less regard would be had to personal mitigation, and that once the case had fallen into the realm of an inappropriate sexual relationship between an osteopath and his patient, the sanction of removal from the register had been within the reasonable band of sanctions available to the panel. The court further held that the panel's reasoning, albeit succinct, had been adequate in explaining to the appellant and the public why it had decided to take the course which it had, and that the panel's decision was not flawed.

Family proceedings – Care proceedings. The present was a case where the inability of the local authority to demonstrate facts which crossed the threshold was obvious, such that the authority's application for permission to withdraw had to succeed. The Family Court held that the balance of the evidence viewed in its totality and on its broad panorama made it obvious threshold could not be established.

Pension – Pension scheme. Inflation-linked annual increases to the pensions of members of a scheme could not have been validly granted pursuant to any enabling powers contained in subsequent deed and rules which had retrospective effect. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant principal employer's appeal, held that the claimant trustees had failed to explain how the mere introduction of the deed and rules, and their back-dating, could have brought about the deemed exercise by the trustees of any enabling powers which, had they been in place at the relevant time, might have validated the steps taken.

Judicial review – local planning policy. In dismissing an application for judicial review of the decision of the planning committee of the defendant local authority, The Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court, held, that the decision to provide specialist care accommodation for other vulnerable groups in addition to the elderly had been correctly made after considering sufficient evidence. Further, the relevant policy had been correctly interpreted.

Mental health – Court of Protection. The applicant (HCCG) proposed an extensive package of care for AJ (a 24-year-old man with autism and learning disabilities) at his family home, with most of the financial arrangements managed by a third party broker. The Court of Protection held that, notwithstanding the dissatisfaction of AJ's parents, HCCG's proposals were in AJ's best interests, and that, while the arrangements would include the deprivation of AJ's liberty, it was appropriate to authorise that for a review period of 12 months.

Landlord and tenant – Service charge. The landlord had not acted reasonably in the way it had required from the defendant under-tenants money in advance of costs to be incurred in remedial works. Accordingly, the Chancery division dismissed the landlord's application for summary judgment arising from the first defendant's non payment of service charge.

Company – Winding-up petition. The petitioner's appeal against the chief registrar's order, dismissing its winding-up petition, with no provision for its costs, was allowed. The petitioner had alleged that the respondent company had failed to repay a loan. The company had disputed the alleged debt, but had later paid it, and both parties had agreed that the petition should be dismissed. The Chancery Division held that, it had been wrong in principle for the chief registrar to deny the petitioner its costs, in circumstances where there had been a dispute and where there had been arguments on either side. The court held that, on the facts, the petition had been justified and that the ordinary order should be made, namely that the company should pay the petitioner's costs of the petition.

Income tax – Annual tax on enveloped dwellings. The taxpayer company had been not been carrying on a 'property development trade' as defined in s 138(4) of the Finance Act 2013 and had not been holding the relevant property for the purposes of that trade. Consequently, it was not entitled to relief from the Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (ATED). Accordingly, the First-tier Tax Tribunal dismissed the taxpayer's appeal against the Revenue and Customs Commissioners' decision to impose the ATED on the taxpayer.

Telecommunications – Licensing. The defendant Secretary of State's direction to Ofcom not to make regulations, under s 8(4) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, exempting commercial multi-user gateway GSM apparatus from an individual licensing requirement was ultra vires his powers under s 5(2) Communications Act 2003 and was, therefore, unlawful. Accordingly, the Administrative Court allowed the claimant company's application for judicial review of the direction and accepted its contention that s 5(2) did not confer any power to direct Ofcom not to comply with its duty under s 8(4).