Latest Cases

Pension – Pension scheme. The claimant medical company's claim against the defendant directors failed. The Chancery Division held that the defendants had not conspired, or acted in breach of duty, to cause their interests to be preferred over those of the company by making alterations to the company pension scheme. There had been no misconduct or breach of duty.

Education – Teacher. The Secretary of State for Education's decision to make a prohibition order against the appellant teacher to the effect that he would not be able to teach in any school, sixth form college or similar institution, was not wrong. The Queen's Bench Division held that the gravity of the consequences of the appellant's behaviour towards another teacher had been part of the balancing exercise. It could not outweigh the legitimate public interest in the appropriate case. Consequently, the appellant's appeal against the Secretary of State's decision would be dismissed.

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Although s 51A of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 had introduced a bespoke statutory regime for the regulation of post-adoption contact, the law remained that it would only be in an extremely unusual case that a court would make an order stipulating contact arrangement to which the adopters of a child did not agree. While there might be justification in considering some form of direct contact, the ultimate decision as to what contact was to take place was for the adopters. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, so ruled in dismissing the appellant natural parents' appeal against the dismissal of their application for post adoption contact with their child.

Tax – Income tax. Statutory interest payable under r 14.23(7) of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, SI 2016/1024, was yearly interest within the meaning of s 874 of the Income Tax Act 2007, so that the appellant administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) had first to deduct income tax before paying interest to proving creditors. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the administrators' appeal against the Court of Appeal, Civil Division's decision, and held that income tax was payable to the respondent Revenue and Customs Commissioners.

Prison – Conditions. Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 22/2015, which provided that the discretion not to follow the Parole Board's recommendation to transfer the prisoner to open conditions should be exercised within very limited parameters, was lawful. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant serving prisoner's application for judicial review, further held that the process by which the defendant Secretary of State's decision not to implement the recommendation of the Parole Board that the claimant be transferred to open conditions, had been reached had not been unfair.

Practice – Compromise of action. The claimant trustees' application to lift the stay of proceedings in a Tomlin order succeeded. The proceedings arose from a guarantee given by the first defendant in favour of a trust. The Commercial Court held that there was no reason to conclude that there had been any abuse of process or any other reason to prevent the pursuit of the application.

Company – Voluntary winding up. The judge had erred in holding that it was arguable that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil was applicable to special purpose vehicles which had been granted leases of properties by the defendants. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled that the attempt by the claimant local authorities to recover national non-domestic rates from the defendants in respect of the relevant unoccupied hereditaments could not succeed and the actions brought by them had to be struck out.

Contract – Restraint of trade. The judge had taken into account matters that he should not have taken into account in applying the relevant law to the validity of the non-compete clause as it had been found in the non-disclosure agreement between the appellant and respondent law firms. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, discharged the injunction that had been granted against the appellants preventing them acting for their own separate group of claimants in relation to claims arising from the Volkswagen emissions scandal.

Immigration – Deportation. A 'human rights claim' in s 82(1)(b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as amended, meant an original human rights claim or a fresh human rights claim within r 353 of the Immigration Rules (the Rules). Accordingly, where a person had already had a protection claim or a human rights claim refused and there was no pending appeal, further submissions which relied on protection or human rights grounds, had to first be accepted by the Secretary of State as a fresh claim, in accordance with r 353 of the Rules, if a decision in response to those representations was to attract a right of appeal under s 82 of the Act. The Supreme Court so ruled in dismissing the appellant foreign criminal's appeal, concerning decisions that further representations made on his behalf in respect of a deportation order did not amount to a fresh human rights claim under r 353 of the Rules, and that he had no right of appeal.

Housing – Accommodation. The claimant association, which was a representative organisation for private landlords and letting agents in the Hull area, had failed to establish that Hull City Council (HCC) had erred in its decision to approve a new housing enforcement policy. Consequently, the Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's action for judicial review to quash HCC's decision.