Latest Cases

Social security – Child tax credit. In an action by the claimants, who were members of families affected by the two child limit under the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the limit of two children in respect of whom child tax credit and universal credit were payable, was not incompatible with arts 8, 12 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The aims and measures of the legislative provisions was legitimate and it could not be said that any difference in treatment was manifestly not a proportionate means of pursuing legitimate aims.

Negligence – Personal injury. The appellant's appeal against a judge's decision dismissing his medical negligence claim, concerning two of three knee operations that had been carried out at the respondent's hospital, was dismissed. In dismissing the ground of appeal based on informed consent, concerning the second operation, the Queen's Bench Division agreed with the judge below that the departure from the NICE guidelines had not been prima facie evidence of negligence. The court held that there was no public law duty to expressly inform a patient that an operation was not in accordance with the NICE guidelines, and that the judge had come to conclusions open to him on the evidence. The court further held that, on the facts, there was no ground for overturning the judge's conclusions concerning the third operation.

Extradition – Right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The conjoined appeals related to European arrest warrants for drink-driving offences, concerned with the potential infringement of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Divisional Court held that the district judge: (i) in the case of the first respondent extraditee, had wrongly discharged him on the basis of the conclusion that the assurances given by the Romanian court as to a minimum 3m2 of personal space, so as to ensure compliance with the standard laid down by the European Court of Human Rights, had been inadequate; and (ii) in the case of the second appellant extraditee, had correctly ordered his extradition on the basis that the assurances offered by the Romanian court had been sufficient. Accordingly, the Divisional Court allowed the Romanian court's appeal against the first respondent's discharge but dismissed the second appellant's appeal against his extradition.

Negligence – Personal injury. The claimant, a former firefighter, who had suffered a stroke following brain surgery, failed, on the facts, to establish that the defendant NHS trust was liable for clinical negligence. However, the Queen's Bench Division held that the claim, alleging lack of informed consent, succeeded, in part, and that, on the facts, the claimant had succeeded in establishing that the breach of duty had caused the stroke that he had suffered.

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. In an appeal by interested parties against the dismissal of a challenge to a consultation carried out by the respondent Clinical Commissioning Group about proposals for changes in the provision of hospital and health care services in Oxfordshire, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the decision to carry out the consultation in two phases had not been unfair.

European Union – Civil and commercial matters. Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 should be interpreted as meaning that a court of a member state did not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute concerning a claim for compensation brought under art 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, and directed against an airline, established in the territory of another member state, on the ground that that company had a branch within the territorial jurisdiction of the court seised, without that branch having been involved in the legal relationship between the airline and the passenger concerned. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in proceedings concerning a claim for compensation brought by the applicant passenger against Ryanair DAC following a delayed flight.

European Union – Freedom of movement. Article 7(1)(a) and (3)(c) of Directive (EC) 2004/78 should be interpreted as meaning that a national of a member state who, having exercised his right to free movement, had acquired, in another member state, the status of worker within the meaning of art 7(1)(a) of that directive, on account of the activity he had pursued there for a period of two weeks, otherwise than under a fixed-term employment contract, before becoming involuntarily unemployed, retained the status of worker for a further period of no less than six months under those provisions, provided that he had registered as a jobseeker with the relevant employment office. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the refusal by the Minister for Social Protection (Ireland) to grant the applicant jobseeker's allowance.

Trade mark – Registration. The appellant company's appeal against a decision of the hearing officer of the Intellectual Property Office (the IPO) failed. The proceedings concerned an attempt by the appellant company to register the words 'TRUMP TV' as a trade mark in the UK. The Chancery Division held that the hearing officer had not erred in holding that the application was in bad faith. The court gave guidance as to the approach that the IPO should take in future cases.

Extradition – Extradition order. The judge had not erred by ordering the appellant's extradition to Lithuania in relation to alleged drug offences and there was no real risk of impermissible treatment, contrary to art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, of the appellant in the prison in which she would be held post-conviction. However, the Administrative Court stayed the appeal to obtain an assurance from the Lithuanian authority to determine whether it was possible to meet the public interest in the appellant's extradition without causing the serious harm to her son which would follow on any separation from his mother. The court ruled that, after the expiry of the 42-day period given, further submissions would be heard, concerning the issue arising under art 8 of the Convention.

Company – Directors. The claimant Lithuanians were granted summary judgment on their claim for breach of their employment contracts, arising from alleged unpaid wages, unlawful deductions and fees, and lack of holiday pay. The claimants contended that they had been employed by the first defendant company (on a chicken farm) in an exploitative manner, commonly working extremely long hours and being paid less than the statutory minimum wage. The Queen's Bench Division held that there was no realistic prospect of the defendants succeeding at trial. The court further ruled, on a preliminary issue, that the second and third defendants (who were, respectively, the director and secretary of the company) were jointly and severally liable to the claimants for inducing the company's breaches of contract, because they had not been acting bona fide in relation to the company and, on the evidence, they had both 'actually realised' that what they had been doing had involved causing the company to breach its contractual obligations towards the claimants.