Latest Cases

Privilege – Legal professional privilege. The new material fell well short of being capable of establishing fraud or iniquity that would justify overriding or ignoring the legal professional privilege which otherwise would attach to all that the whistle-blower's statement had described. As a result, it was not admissible and so there was no new evidence on which the applicant wife could rely to justify reopening the financial remedy proceedings. Accordingly, the Family Division dismissed the wife's application to set aside the judge's decision, which in turn had dismissed the wife's application to set aside a consent order.

Contract – Construction contract. The Technology and Construction Court made rulings on a number of preliminary issues in a construction dispute. Among other things, it held that the parties had not intended only to be legally bound by the contract in issue when both of them had signed it. It followed that they had both been bound by the contract when the defendant company had signed it, even though the claimant company had not done so.

Insurance – Claim. It could not be said that the claimant had failed to disclose material facts relevant to his claim for payment under a work insurance scheme. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the decision of the Queen's Bench Division that the claimant was therefore, entitled to policy benefit payments which he had not received since September 2013 up to 26 July 2017 together with interest thereon.

Immigration – Trafficking people for exploitation. There was a restrained timescale for victim identification under the National Referral Mechanism and that restraint was the obligation to determine cases in a reasonable period. However, the Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimants' applications for judicial review, held that the delay of 34 and 19 months in the claimants' cases had not been so egregious as to be unlawful when looked at in isolation.

Immigration – Child subject to immigration legislation. There had been unfairness in the absence of short reasons for the decision finding the claimant child not to be eligible for transfer under s 67 of the Immigration Act 2016 and in the absence of wider dissemination in the UK of the detailed process guidance. However, the Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's other grounds for judicial review.

Extradition – Permission to appeal. Four of the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal against orders for his extradition to face two charges of bribery of Romanian judges would be stayed pending the outcome of two other appeals. However, the Administrative Court dismissed his submission, that the judge had erred in refusing to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process in the light of an arbitral tribunal's recommendation that the extradition proceedings either be stayed or withdrawn pending its final decision, as unarguable.

Immigration – Leave to remain. The defendant Secretary of State had not erred in his decision that the claimant Bangladeshi national was liable to administrative removal as an overstayer. The Administrative Court further held that the claimant's immigration detention was lawful, save for a period from 24 June 2017 to 9 August 2017, after permission to apply for judicial review had been granted.

Human rights – Infringement of human rights. The guidance which the Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) was understood to have given in the present proceedings, concerning a claim for damages by the appellant under s 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for breach of a requirement regarding an investigation into a death under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was not consistent with the relevant principles. Pursuant to that guidance, the relevant investigation into a death in relation to art 2 should not be brought until an inquest had been concluded, or if already brought should be stayed until after that date. Consequently, the Supreme Court, allowed the appellant's appeal, preferring the subsequent clarification provided in McCord, Re Application for Judicial Review[2019] NICA 4, which considerably narrowed the apparent scope of that guidance.

Public procurement – Public contract. The Technology and Construction Court held in favour of the claimant companies (together, Eurotunnel) in a dispute concerning the correct trial for a tendering dispute. Eurotunnel wanted to have the trial before 'Brexit day', namely 29 March 2019, while the defendant Secretary of State for Transport wanted the trial to commence in April. The court held that the matters being considered were very important public interest matters, and that, given that Eurotunnel had already served its witness statements, there was no reason why the trial could not begin on the first day of March.

Local authority – Statutory duty. In a personal injury claim arising from the claimant's bicycle hitting a pothole on a road maintained by the defendant council, the district judge had been right to find that there had not been enough reliable evidence of the dimensions or conditions of the pothole to say that it was more likely than not that it had presented a real source of danger. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's appeal against the decision that the council had not breached its statutory duty pursuant to s 41 of the Highways Act 1980.