Latest Cases

Damages – Measure of damages. The first and second claimants would be each awarded £155,000, and the third claimant £104,000 in damages for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. In particular, the Queen's Bench Division, held that exemplary damages were required to highlight and condemn the egregious and shameful behaviour of a senior and experienced police officer who had been de facto prosecutor.

Company – Shareholder. The claimant shareholders had been entitled to a declaration that resolutions that they had passed at a general meeting convened to consider those resolutions, which had been passed after the chairman had announced that the resolutions would not be considered and the meeting closed, were effective. The Chancery Division so determined holding, amongst other things, that whilst the board had been entitled to refuse to allow a meeting to be convened if a particular resolution was not intended to be moved, or if it might not properly be moved, once a general meeting had been convened to consider the resolutions, the only people who could then consider the proposed resolutions included in the notice convening the meeting were the members of the company.

Criminal law – Trial. An individual adjudged unfit to be tried was not competent to appeal in person and could not be invited to waive privilege, the standard form NG applicable to all proposed appeals against conviction or sentence was not apposite in all respects and legal costs of an appeal should be paid out of central funds. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, further held that there were no available substantive grounds of appeal against the finding that the unfit to be tried defendant had committed the acts in respect of two offences of meeting a child following sexual grooming which were realistically arguable.

Company – Shareholder. The claimant shareholders had been entitled to a declaration that resolutions that they had passed at a general meeting convened to consider those resolutions, which had been passed after the chairman had announced that the resolutions would not be considered and the meeting closed, were effective. The Chancery Division so determined holding, amongst other things, that whilst the board had been entitled to refuse to allow a meeting to be convened if a particular resolution was not intended to be moved, or if it might not properly be moved, once a general meeting had been convened to consider the resolutions, the only people who could then consider the proposed resolutions included in the notice convening the meeting were the members of the company.

Education – Local education authority. The respondent Welsh Minister, as part of fulfilling his powers and duties under Learning and Skills Act 2000, published a policy (the Policy) setting out how placement decisions would be taken for young people with learning difficulties at specialist educational establishments. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, that the policy was not unlawful and had not acted as an unlawful fetter of the discretion of the Welsh Minister when making decisions about the appellant's (a young adult with severe and complex learning difficulties) education needs.

Education – Local education authority. The respondent Welsh Minister, as part of fulfilling his powers and duties under Learning and Skills Act 2000, published a policy (the Policy) setting out how placement decisions would be taken for young people with learning difficulties at specialist educational establishments. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, that the policy was not unlawful and had not acted as an unlawful fetter of the discretion of the Welsh Minister when making decisions about the appellant's (a young adult with severe and complex learning difficulties) education needs.

Insolvency – Petition. There was no trace of any retrospectivity in the provisions relating to applications for permission under Extended Civil Restraint Orders (ECRO) The Chancery Division held, relying on previous case law, that an application made without permission under an ECRO could not be validated retrospectively, so that for the purposes of s 267(2)(d) of the Insolvency Act 1986 there remained an outstanding application.

European Union – Copyright. Articles 2(a) and 3(1) of Directive (EC) 2001/29 should be interpreted as constituting measures of full harmonisation of the scope of the exceptions or limitations which they contained. Article 5(3)(c), second case, and (d) of that Directive should be interpreted as not constituting measures of full harmonisation of the scope of the relevant exceptions or limitations. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning publication by the applicant media company of certain documents 'classified for restricted access' drawn up by the German government.

Family proceedings – Costs. FPR 28 did not prohibit the making of a retrospective order where no order had been made and whether a court would make such an order depended upon the circumstances of the case, and where costs had not been mentioned in the original order, an application would necessarily be considered by the court against the backdrop of CPR 44.10(1)(a) that, as a general rule, the party seeking the order for costs was not entitled to an order. However, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the costs figure awarded by the judge had been unreasonable in amount pursuant to CPR 44.4(1)(b)(ii) and the global figure would accordingly be reduced.

Criminal law – Assault. In 'potting' cases – a prisoner either throwing at or smearing a prison officer with urine, faeces or both – it was for the judge to rule as a matter of law whether the substance, in the quantity and manner in which it was shown by the evidence to have been administered, could properly be found by the jury to be injurious, hurtful, harmful or unwholesome, and if so, it was for the jury whether it was satisfied that it had been a noxious thing. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, also gave guidance as to the appropriate level of sentencing in 'potting' cases.