Latest Cases

Local authority – Budget. It could not be said that no reasonable decision-maker could decide to include areas of focus in which work could be done by the defendant local authority to identify ways of reducing the cost of special educational needs and disabilities services in the budget. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the claimants' application for judicial review, held that that conclusion unravelled the remainder of the claimants' case, which depended on the proposition that the cabinet could not lawfully make the decision absent worked-out proposals of how the savings might be made or what the impact of such proposals might be.

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. Publications which baldly restated the allegations of others were likely to amount to a republication of those allegations. For the purposes of meaning, the practical effect was that the allegations were adopted by the republisher. There was no requirement that a publisher had to actively or expressly adopt the allegations. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division ruled that the repetition rule applied to the present libel proceedings brought by the claimant barrister against the defendant publishers of The Times and the MailOnline respectively, concerning articles published in April 2017. The court considered, as a preliminary issue, whether the words in the articles complained of were capable of bearing the pleaded meaning.

Immigration – Leave to remain. Against the background of the administration of immigration policy, it was to the highest degree unlikely that what the Secretary of State had intended by the use of the words 'receipt by the applicant' in para 34R of the Immigration Rules had been actual, physical receipt into the applicant's possession. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant Bangladeshi national's appeal, held that his application for an administrative review of an adverse decision on his application for further leave to remain had been made outside the 14-day time limit for applying.

Immigration – Detention. The judge had made both procedural and substantive errors in declaring the Asylum and Immigration (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2005, SI 2005/560, to be unlawful, the claimants' detention between 9 July 2013 and 22 October 2013 to have been unlawful and in awarding them substantial damages in respect of such detention. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, remitted the matter for a fresh hearing to decide whether there had been any unlawful detention.

European Union – Contract. Article 2(b) of Council Directive (EEC) 93/13 should be interpreted as meaning that the employee of an undertaking and his spouse, who had concluded a loan contract with that undertaking, reserved, principally, to members of staff of that undertaking, with a view to financing the purchase of real estate for private purposes, should be regarded as 'consumers', within the meaning of that provision. Further, that undertaking had to be regarded as a 'seller or supplier', within the meaning of art 2(c) of that Directive , where it concluded such a loan contract in the context of its professional activity, even if granting loans did not constitute its main activity. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning a request for payment of outstanding sums owed in the context of a mortgage loan granted by the respondent electricity company to the first applicant employee and his wife.

Claim form – Limitation. The appellants' appeal against a calculation of the limitation period for a claim against trustees failed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had not erred in as to the limitation date for legal action for the claim. In considering when a deadline fell, a 'midnight deadline' case was different from others in the sense that the deadline provided a categorical indication that the action had occurred by that point in time, rather than accruing on the day following midnight. For that reason, no fractions of a day arose.

Brexit – Company. The statutory requirements had been satisfied in respect of the applicants' application for an insurance business transfer pursuant to Pt VII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Among other things, the transfer provided certainty to the applicants' European Economic Area policyholders that their policies would continue to be serviced, irrespective of the outcome of Brexit. Accordingly, the Chancery Division sanctioned the transfer.

Extradition – Private and family life. Given the nature of the alleged offences, the passage of time, the fact that the appellant had been the victim of trafficking, his mental health and vulnerability, and the real problems he would face if he were sent to Bulgaria, the present was a case where returning him to Bulgaria for the offences would involve a disproportionate effect on his right to respect for private life. Accordingly, the Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Bulgaria to face trial for two alleged offences of breach of the law on trademarks.

Family provision – Time for application. Although the application by the claimant, pursuant to s 4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975), had been brought 25 years and 9 months after the 6 month deadline for doing so had expired, she had demonstrated compelling reasons why it was right and proper that the court should exercise its discretion in her favour. Accordingly, the Chancery Division allowed the claimant's application to bring a maintenance claim under the I(PFD)A 1975 s 1(2)(a).

Sentence – Sexual offences against children. The sentences of six years' and six years and nine months' imprisonment imposed on the offenders for offences including causing the first offender's child to engage in sexual activity, commencing when she was about two-years-old, had not been unduly lenient. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the sentences had not been outside the range of permissible sentences.