Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Chancery Division held that, in the circumstances of the case, it was not convenient or just to grant the claimant a freezing injunction. Whilst the claimant did have an arguable case and damages would not be an adequate remedy if an injunction were refused, the defendant also had good prospects of establishing a defence to the action and damages were also inadequate if the defendant was wrongly restrained by an order.
Police Powers. Whilst travelling from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro via Heathrow Airport, the claimant, the partner of an American journalist who had written stories for newspapers relating to mass surveillance programmes by the agencies of the United States and the United Kingdom governments, was detained for a period of almost nine hours. During that time, he was questioned and items including his laptop, telephone and memory sticks were taken and retained. The claimant applied for permission to apply for judicial review and the grant of interim relief such that the defendants were prohibited from examining the material detained or informing third parties of its contents. During the course of the hearing, it was agreed that the question of interim relief would be considered on 30 August. The sole question before the court was the balance of convenience in the eight days between the hearing and 30 August. The Divisional Court held that to exclude from the prohibition of inspection and disclosure any inspection and prohibition for the purposes of a criminal investigation and use in criminal proceedings was too broad. However, inspection for the purpose of considering whether the claimant fell within s40(1)(b) of the and more generally for the purpose of protecting national security ought to be permitted pending the inter-partes interim relief hearing. Notwithstanding the competing interests, the public interest in the investigation, detection and prosecution of those who were reasonably suspected to be terrorists plainly justified the specific and relatively short exception. Inspection and disclosure for the purpose of protecting national security, including by preventing or avoiding the endangering of the life of any person or the diminution of the counter-terrorism capability of Her Majesty's Government ought to be permitted in the limited period until 30 August, notwithstanding the high importance of protecting journalistic sources.
Housing Local authority. In judicial review proceedings, the claimant, KO, applied by his mother, O, for permission to challenge the defendant local authority's failure to assess his need for accommodation and that of his brother B. O was a failed asylum seeker. Since 2009, B had been living with his elder half-sister. From 2011, contact had been ordered by the family court. In 2013, O had attempted to obtain an order giving her overnight contact with B, but had been unsuccessful as her current accommodation was unsuitable to enable him to stay over. KO and O were accommodated by the authority pursuant to the power in s17 of the . KO alleged a failure by the authority to carry out an assessment of the needs of B and KO, and a failure to provide accommodation for the family as a whole, such as would permit B to have overnight contact with his mother and brother. The case was stated to be urgent as contact issues were to be addressed at a family hearing due to commence on 28 August (the family hearing). Further assessments were carried out by the authority. The claimant applied for interim relief in the form of an order that the authority provide accommodation for KO, O and B pending the final determination of the proceedings. In refusing interim relief, the Administrative Court held that KO was seeking, by way of interim relief, more than he would get at a substantive hearing. O would not suffer irredeemable prejudice if relief was not granted at the instant time. It might make it more difficult for O to obtain contact with or a residence order in relation to B, but the position would have changed by the time the family hearing arrived, as the court would grant permission to apply for judicial review. Some prejudice would be suffered, but it was not sufficient to justify the grant of interim relief.
Contempt of court Committal. The claimant bank issued committal proceedings against the seventeenth defendant in the instant action in which the bank sought to recover substantial sums which had been misappropriated from it through fraud. The bank alleged that the defendant had lied in witness statements and in cross-examination and had been guilty of criminal contempt. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been correct in refusing to commit a defendant for contempt of court as the bank had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had lied.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The youngest child of the defendant mother was found to have fractured ribs and was taken into care under an interim care order. At a fact finding hearing, the judge found that she was unable to be satisfied that the injury was non-accidental. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the local authority's appeal as it had it had just been open to the judge to come to the conclusion which she had after having heard all of the evidence over a five day hearing.
Extradition Extradition order. The appellant appealed against an order for her extradition to Poland on the grounds that it would be oppressive due to the risk of her suicide and would breach her rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She further sought an adjournment and bail pending the decision of the Polish court on a reduced sentence. The Administrative Court refused the adjournment and, therefore, bail despite the short time sought. It further dismissed the appeal, as the risk of suicide did not render extradition oppressive and was not disproportionate to her rights under art 8 of the Convention.
Company Member. The petitioner's application for relief under s994 of the had been dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed his appeal as, on the facts, there had been no breach of the shareholders' agreement and he had not been unfairly prejudiced.
Trespass to land Remedy. The claimant was the owner of property near Heathrow Airport. The defendants were part of a group known as 'Grow Heathrow' or 'Transition Heathrow', who had unlawfully trespassed on the land and in time it became their dwelling places and their homes. The claimant was granted an immediate order for possession. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge's decision to order immediate possession of privately owned land from trespassers could not be faulted. The judge had reached a conclusion in a proper, principled way.
Equity Confidence. The claimant Formula One team brought a claim against the defendant aerodynamic testing and development companies alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and misuse of confidential information. The judge held that the first defendant had been in breach of contract but that the extent of the breach was not as great as the claimant had alleged and awarded 25,000 in damages. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal holding that the judge's overall finding on the evidence that he had heard was undoubtedly one which he had been entitled to make and that he had made no error of principle in his assessment of damages.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. A prohibited steps order had been made which prevented the mother from removing a child from the United Kingdom. She had unsuccessfully appealed that order and, in circumstances where the mother had not attended the application or the appeal, the matter had been remitted to a judge who was familiar with the facts of the case, having earlier granted a non-molestation order in favour of the mother. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the mother's appeal as the prohibited steps order had been correctly granted on the evidence that had been before the justices. The interference with the mother's right to family life under art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not disproportionate, whereas the risk that removal posed to the child's family life with her father might have been a disproportionate interference with her right to a family life.