Latest Cases

European Union – Energy efficiency. Article 11(1) of Directive (EU) 2012/27 should be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a discount on electricity network charges granted by an electricity retail sales company exclusively to final customers who had chosen electronic billing. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in proceedings concerning a monthly discount on electricity network charges granted to final customers who had chosen electronic billing.

Town and country planning – Permission for development. Each of the claims in tort pursued by the claimant (the parish council) against the defendant (the Holy Cross Sisters), concerning steps taken by the latter to obtain planning permission for a site, following the closure of a Catholic school, were dismissed. The claimant had been alleged that some of the Holy Cross Sisters, together with another, had conspired to provide false information to the local authority (the authority) concerning the planning application. The Queen's Bench Division held that the interference with a claimant's non-economic interests was not sufficient to found the unlawful means tort. Accordingly, the court rejected the parish council's submission that interference of its non-economic interest (in the proposed relocation of the Church of England school to the site in question) was sufficient to found the tort. The court further held that there had been no conspiracy to use unlawful means, as alleged, that the intent necessary for an unlawful means conspiracy had not been established, and that the parish council had suffered no loss by reason of the authority's decision to grant planning permission.

Bankruptcy – Petition. The Chancery Division considered a bankruptcy petition made against the respondent (S). The court amended part of the bankruptcy petition, substituting the second petitioner Revenue and Customs Commissioners (HMRC) for the first petitioner. A bankruptcy order was made as sought by HMRC.

Sentence – Hospital order. The indeterminate sentence of imprisonment imposed on the defendant for wounding with intent was quashed and substituted by orders under ss 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, on the facts of the case, that sentence would most effectively protect the public.

Elections – Voting. The present tactile voting device was not a device within the scope of r 29(3A) of Sch 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 power, as it did not enable blind voters to vote without any need for assistance. The Administrative Court, in allowing the claimant's application for judicial review, further held that a device in the form of the present device would achieve that if, in addition to the flaps and raised/braille numbers on the right-hand side, the names of the candidates and/or the names of their political parties were present in Braille and/or raised lettering in corresponding position, on the left-hand side of the device.

Company – Administration. The Chancery Division dismissed an application for an amendment to amend an application for the appointment of administrators over a company. The court held that, among other things, the two relevant grounds were not separate from one another, and it was not appropriate for one of them to be decided as a preliminary issue. Further, the court had real concern about making a final order, namely the appointment of an administrator, before the trial of related proceedings.

Housing – Homeless person. In two appeals in which the local Housing Authority's policy that provided that, subject to exceptions, a person who had not been continuously living in the borough for at least ten yeas would not qualify to join the housing register, it was found, in the first case, that the policy was discriminatory and not justified, and in the second that it was not discriminatory nor unjustified. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissing the authority's appeal in the first case, and allowing the applicant's appeal in the second, held that the policy had amounted to indirect discrimination and that the authority had failed to establish any justification for that discrimination.

Sentence – Fine. The fine imposed on the defendant company for failing to ensure that the workplace was organised in such a way, as to ensure that pedestrians and vehicles could circulate in a safe manner had been neither manifestly excessive, nor wrong in principle. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed its appeal against sentence.

Criminal law – Proceeds of crime. It was arguable that the local authority's investigation into alleged offences of fraud relating to a number of businesses, including that of the claimants, was ultra vires and that the authority lacked the legal power to make an application under s 345 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) for a production order in relation to the claimants' banking records. Consequently, the Queen's Bench Division gave permission for the claimant companies to bring proceedings for judicial review of the recorder's decision to make those production orders. However, the court held that, contrary to the claimant's arguments, the application had correctly been made under POCA 2002 s 345, and accordingly, that ground of the claimants' application was dismissed.

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. There was no requirement in s 54(2) of Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 that the applicants for a parental order had to be in an enduring family relationship at the time of the making of the application and the making of the order. Accordingly, the Family Court made a parental order in favour of the applicant surrogate parents of a child (N). The court held that, it was clear the applicants had been in an enduring family relationship at the time they had made their application, and that, even though they had been living in separate homes since August 2018, N had always been with one of them since then and, as a result, her home had been with them, under s 54(4) of the Act, albeit divided between two properties.