R (All the Citizens) v SoS (2022) EWHC 960 (Admin), a Divisional Court is concerned with whether there is a legal duty, enforceable by judicial review, to create and maintain records so that they are available for posterity, and whether policies are enforceable as a matter of public law.

At para 17, the Court addressed a procedural question. They said, at para 17 (emphasis added):-

“It should not be left to parties (or, for that matter, the court) to have to infer, from omissions in skeleton arguments, what grounds of claim have been abandoned. If a party no longer pursues a ground of claim, that ought to be made clear to the court and to the other parties. To do otherwise is inconsistent with the obligations to:

(1)     help the court to further the overriding objective (which includes identifying the issues at an early stage): see CPR 1.3 and 1.4(2)(b); Read more »

In Underwood v Bounty (2022) EWHC 888 ( QB ) claims for breach of the Data Protection Act Principles and for privacy/misuse of private information failed. Nicklin J reiterated at para 50 in relation to the tort of misuse of private information that liability is determined using a 2 stage test: (1) whether the claimant has “a reasonable expectation” of privacy in the relevant information; and, if so (2) whether that is outweighed by “countervailing interests”.

In Somerset County Council v NHS Somerset (2022) EWFC 31 the President of the Family Division reiterates two fundamental principles of constitutional law : –

Read more »

See R (Good Law Project) v SoS (2022) EWCA Civ 355 at para 39 on the need for promptness and speed in judicial review claims generally, and procurement challenges in particular, at para 41 on the importance of valid service of claim forms, and at paras 78-80 inclusive applications for extension of time. At para 57 the Court of Appeal says that, provided the Defendant has done nothing to put obstacles in the Claimant’s way, a potential Defendant is under no obligation to give positive assistance to the Claimant to serve. The potential Defendant can sit back and await developments. There is no duty on the Defendant to warn a Claimant that valid service of a claim form has not been effected.

In Mullaley v Martlet Homes Ltd (2022) EWCA Civ 32 a claimant was permitted to amend its claim out of time under CPR r.17.4 so as to include an allegation that the defendant’s use of combustible cladding material for tower block refurbishment breached a design and build contract. In considering whether such a new cause of action arose from “the same facts or substantially the same facts” as those which the defendant had put in issue in its defence, some limited flexibility is allowed for a claimant to rely on new facts or matters beyond those pleaded in the defence in order to allow for expansion, elaboration or

Read more »

In Barking & Dagenham LBC v Persons Unknown (2022) EWCA Civ 13 the Court of Appeal rules that the Courts can grant in respect of unauthorised encampments a final injunction that prevent  persons that are unknown and unidentified at the date of the Order, newcomers, from occupying and trespassing on local authority land.

Section 29(6) of the Equality Act 2010 on exercise of a public function does not provide a remedy equivalent to Section 39(2) of that Act on discrimination against employee. So held in Eckland v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset (2021) EWCA Civ 1961, because the former claim has to be brought in the County Court, whereas the latter can be pursued in an Employment Tribunal. There are a number of material differences between the two jurisdictions, including that it is the ET which has the appropriate expertise for determining discrimination disputes in the employment field, and both the costs regime and the available remedies are different.

The 30 day limitation for procurement claims is a short one, but the Courts have repeatedly emphasised that it should be observed. In Access for Living Limited v Lewisham LBC (2021) EWHC 3498 ( TCC ) Jefford J says : –

Read more »

Whether or not to grant an injunction in a public law case involves the exercise of a discretion which takes all relevant matters into account. These include the strength of the case advanced by the party seeking relief. That however, is not the application of a rigid test. Other important factors to be taken into account are (1) the particular decision under challenge, (2) the interests of the public in general that are involved, and (3) the broader legal framework. See para 52 in R ( S & S ) v HMRC (2021) EWHC 3174 ( Admin ).

The appeal in R ( Majera) v SSHD (2021) UKSC 46 raised a question of constitutional importance: whether it is possible to act lawfully in a manner which is inconsistent with an Order of a Judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of that Order. The answer, reversing the Court of Appeal, is: No.