Latest Cases

European Union – Public procurement. The second subparagraph of art 5(1) of Directive (EC) 2004/17 should be interpreted as meaning that there was a network of rail transport services, within the meaning of that provision, where transport services were provided, in application of national legislation transposing Directive (EU) 2012/34/EU, on a railway infrastructure managed by a national authority which allocated infrastructure capacity even if that authority was required to meet the requests of railway undertakings provided that the limits of that capacity were not reached. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the alleged disregard of the rules on public procurement procedures when awarding contracts for cleaning services.

Extradition – Habeas corpus. A complete answer to the applicant's writ of habeas corpus would be provided by the fact that there was lawful authority for his detention. On that basis, the appropriate procedure to challenge the district judge's refusal of the applicant's application to be discharged, pursuant to s 36(8) of the Extradition Act 2003, was an application for permission to bring a claim for judicial review. Accordingly, the Divisional Court granted the applicant permission to bring a claim for judicial review, which it then dismissed.

Employment – Transfer of trade, business or undertaking. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) had correctly upheld the employment tribunal's decision that the reason for the claimant's dismissal had been the transfer of the business (following the decision to cease trading for financial reasons), pursuant to reg 4(1) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246, of H&W Wholesale Ltd to the appellant company (HWL). Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed HWL's appeal against the EAT's decision.

Minor – Wrongful removal or retention. A father unsuccessfully appealed against the dismissal of his application for the summary return of his two children, aged 6 and 3 respectively, to Australia, under the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, applying settled law to the facts, the deputy judge had been entitled to her conclusion that, at the date of the repudiatory retention by the mother, the children had been habitually resident in England and Wales.

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The powers under Sch 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, which empowered police, immigration officers and designated customs officers to stop, examine and search passengers at ports, airports and international rail terminals, had not been in accordance with the law and, it followed that there had been a violation of the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the European Court of Human Rights found it unnecessary to examine art 5 and found that art 6 was not engaged, as the claimant had never been arrested nor charged with any (terrorism-related) criminal offence.

Elections – Referendums. The claimants were refused permission to seek judicial review of the respondent Prime Minister's notification to the EU of the UK's intention to withdraw. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, rejected arguments that the decision to notify and the notification itself had been unlawful because they had been based upon the result of a referendum that had been unlawful as a result of corrupt and illegal practices, and that the Prime Minister had erred in law in not responding to the subsequent evidence of those practices as it had emerged.

Human rights – Discrimination. Sections 20-37 of the Immigration Act 2014, concerning the 'right to rent' scheme, which imposed obligations on landlords to take measures to ensure that they did not provide private accommodation to those in the UK illegally, were incompatible with art 14, in conjunction with art 8, of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Administrative Court further declared that a decision by the defendant Secretary of State to commence the scheme in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland without further evaluation of its efficacy and discriminatory impact would be irrational and would constitute a breach of s 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Sentence – Murder. The first offender's sentence of 14 years and 6 months' imprisonment consecutively to a term of three years' imprisonment he had already been serving was substituted by a sentence of 18-and-a-half years' imprisonment for violent disorder, conspiracy to commit violent disorder and attempted murder. However, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, did not interfere with the sentence of 13 years' imprisonment imposed on the second offender for conspiracy to commit violent disorder and attempted murder.

Costs – Protected costs order. The claimant's application for a costs protection order in proceedings against Uber London Ltd (Uber) failed. The Chancery Division held that Uber was a defendant in its capacity as a potential taxpayer: it carried out no public functions. Consequently, the court would not use its discretion to make the order sought.

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. A mother successfully appealed against a judge's decision, allowing a father's (without notice) application for permission to apply for a contact order, under s 8 of the Children Act 1989, concerning his sons, in circumstances where that application had been made following the imposition of an earlier order (under CA 1989 s 91(14), requiring the father to seek permission to make further such applications. The Family Division, in allowing the mother's appeal, considered the test to be applied in respect of such applications for permission, following the imposition of a s 91(14) order. It ruled that, applying the correct test to the facts, the judge had adopted a flawed procedure in granting the father's application without affording the mother the opportunity to make representations, that his ultimate reasoning had been erroneous, and that the decision was unjust.