In FMX v HRMC (2020) UK SC 1 the Supreme Court considered the fundamental principle of legal certainty of general application in EU law.  This includes that where national legislative provisions appear to allow legal action without any time limit, then the principle of legal certainty requires it to be done within a reasonable time (paragraph 45, per Lord Briggs).

In Elston v King (2020) EWHC 55 (Ch) the Court considered the situation where a party seeks to set aside a compromise agreement on grounds of common mistake where the compromise was based on a view of the law that was later overturned.  Marcus Smith J said:-

Read more »

In Civil Aviation Authority v R (ota Jet2.Com Ltd) and the Law Society  (2020) EWCA 35 the Court of Appeal considered when Legal Advice Privilege (“LAP”) is attracted, and affirmed that a claim for LAP requires the proponent of LAP to show that the relevant document, or communication, was created for the “dominant Purpose” (as opposed to one purpose) of obtaining legal advice.  Hickinbottom LJ with whom Patten and Peter Jackson LJJ agreed, considered authorities including Three Rivers (No. 5) and Eurasian, and said:-

Read more »

The Court of Appeal, in Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd v Persons Unknown (2020) EWCA Civ 9, held, doubting, at paragraphs 46-51 inclusive and 66-69 inclusive, Boyd v Ineos Upstream Ltd (2019) EWCA Civ 515, and in the context of non-violent protest, that the fact that an injunction against ‘persons unknown’ referred to the requirement for an ‘intention’ to impede lawful activities did not render the injunction insufficiently clear or certain to be enforceable by committal to prison following a breach. “Intention” did not have any special legal meaning and was not difficult for a member of the public to understand. On an appeal by persons unknown against committal to prison for contempt of court for breach of an injunction to prevent trespass on the respondents’ land and unlawful interference with their rights. The respondents owned land on which they engaged in lawful “fracking”. The appellants were environmental protesters involved in protests on and near the respondents’ site. Read more »

In Bromley v Persons Unknown (2020) EWCA Civ 12 the Court of Appeal set out relevant law in relation to (1) Quia Timet Injunctions Against Persons Unknown (paragraphs 29-35 inclusive), (2) Quia Timet Injunctions to Prevent Likely Trespass (paragraphs 36-39 inclusive), (3) ECHR Article 8 and the Gypsy and Traveller Community (paragraphs 40-48 inclusive), and (4)(i) Relevant Statutes, including the Equality Act 2010 and the PSED (paragraphs 49-53 inclusive), (ii) Guidance in relation to unauthorised emcampments (paragraphs 54-56 inclusive), and (iii) the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (paragraphs 57-58). The Court of Appeal next analysed the Appeal (paragraphs 59-98 inclusive)., especially in relation to proportionality, and then gave “Wider Guidance” as to how local authorities should act (paragraphs 99-109 inclusive),  in particular (paragraph 104) the principal considerations which should be at the forefront of a local authority’s mind when considering whether a Quia Timet Injunction should be sought against Persons Unknown, and where the proposed Injunction is directed towards the Gypsy and Traveller Community.

In Aireborough Neighbourhood Development Forum v Leeds City Council (2020) EWHC 45 (Admin) there was a preliminary issue whether the Forum, an unincorporated association, had the legal capacity to make an application to make a statutory challenge to the LPA’s adoption of a Development Plan Document.  Lieven J held that it did have such capacity.  She addressed conflicting decisions on whether an unincorporated association can bring a judicial review claim. Lieven J held that an unincorporated association does have capacity to bring both a judicial review and a statutory challenge. She said that there is a critical distinction in this respect between private and public law litigation. In public law, the legal capacity of the claimant is not a critical component of the Court having jurisdiction.

In the 2019 Rail Franchising Litigation, SoS for Transport v Arriva Rail East Midlands Ltd (2019) EWCA Civ 2259, the issue in the appeal was the applicable time limit for the bringing of claims arising out of a public procurement process which was not governed by the Public Contracts (and similar) Regulations. It raised the stark contrast between the 3-month time limit required for an application for Judicial Review, and the 6-year limit for a claim for breach of statutory duty provided by the Limitation Act 1980.  It also raised an issue as to the correct approach to the 3-month limit where the public law issues arise not from a one-off decision, but an ongoing process.

Read more »

Essex County Council v Davies (2019) EWHC 3443 (QB) mainly concerned the long established Cavalier v Pope principle that a landlord is not liable for injuries arising from a property having been let in a dangerous state. The nine claimants were employees and visitors at a College leased from the County

Read more »

In Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Ayers-Caesar, (2019) UKPC 44, Lord Sales for the majority of the Privy Council, reiterated, at paragraph 2, that (1) the threshold for the grant of leave to apply for judicial review is “low”; and (2) all that is to be examined is whether there is “an arguable ground for judicial review which has a realistic prospect of success”; but (3) wider questions of the public interest may have “some bearing” on whether leave should be granted; and (4) if the Court is “confident” at the leave stage that the legal position is “entirely clear” and to the effect that “the claim could not succeed”, it would “usually be appropriate” for the Court to dispose of the matter at that stage.

Read more »

Injunctions may be granted to restrict street protests in order to pursue the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting others, as being lawful, necessary and proportionate in a democratic society, and not discriminatory. So held in Birmingham City Council v Afsar (2019) EWHC 3217 (QB), concerned with Read more »