Share it
The Supreme Court has published a list of the results of recent permission to appeal hearings.
Permission was refused in 17 cases and granted in just 8, giving a success rate of 32%. The Court is now providing a monthly list of permissions hearing decisions which it posts to a dedicated section of its website in PDF format.
The cases in which permission has been granted are as follows:
1. Michael v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 981 – granted on 26 June 2013 by Lord Hope, Lord Kerr and Lord Hughes.
The Court of Appeal had granted summary judgment to the defendant police forces in respect of claims for damages in negligence brought by the family of a woman who was killed by her ex-partner following a delayed response to an emergency call to the police. The Supreme Court will consider whether it is arguable that the police were liable in negligence and/or under Article 2 of the ECHR (that provides protection for the right to life).
2. West London Mental Health NHS Trust v Chhabra [2013] EWCA Civ 11 – granted on 3 July 2013 by Lady Hale, Lord Clarke and Lord Carnwath.
The Court of Appeal had held that the NHS Trust had been correct to treat a doctor’s admitted breaches of patient confidentiality resulting from reading notes and discussing patients whilst on public transport as gross misconduct and to refer it to a disciplinary hearing. Owing to the gravity of the issue, it could not properly be dealt with under the Trust’s “fair blame” procedure.
3. Football Dataco Ltd & Ors v Stan James PLC (A Gibraltarian Company) & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 27 – granted on 4 July 2013 by Lord Neuberger, Lord Sumption and Lord Toulson.
The Supreme Court granted a late application for permission to re-amend particulars of claim in a copyright action.
4. R (Barclay & Anor) v Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor & Ors [2013] EWHC 1183 (Admin) – granted on 24 July 2013 by Lady Hale, Lord Clarke and Lord Carnwath.
The High Court held that the provision enabling the alteration of the terms of office of the Seneschal of Sark so that the Seneschal has a dual role as the Chief Judge on the island and the President of the Legislature, the Chief Pleas, was not compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR (that protects the right to a fair trial) and therefore that the decision of the Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey recommending new provisions was wrong and unlawful. The issues for the Supreme Court include whether the High Court of England and Wales has jurisdiction to hear the applicants’ challenge; whether the challenge raises issues that are justiciable; and, if yes to the foregoing, whether the provision is compatible with Article 6.
5. Telchadder v Wickland Holdings Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 635 – granted on 24 July 2013 by Lady Hale, Lord Sumption and Lord Reed.
The Supreme Court granted permission to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal, who had upheld the first instance judge’s decision that a letter sent to a mobile home owner with mild learning difficulties asking him to desist from anti-social behaviour and warning him that his licence to occupy was at risk complied with the notice requirements of the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
6. R (First Stop Wholesale Ltd) v The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 183 – granted on 25 July 2013 by Lord Neuberger, Lord Reed and Lord Carnwath.
The Court of Appeal had held that it was bound by previous authority to decide that goods could be liable to forfeiture on grounds which were not advanced or even known at the point of seizure.
7. AIB Group (UK) PLC v Mark Redler & Co. Solicitors [2013] EWCA Civ 45 – granted on 26 July 2013 by Lord Neuberger, Lord Wilson and Lord Toulson.
The Court of Appeal had held that, whilst the judge below had been incorrect to hold that the defendant only committed a breach of trust in relation to that part of a remortgage advance which was paid to the borrower instead of being used to discharge a first legal charge on the property, rather than the full amount of the advance, the calculation of the compensation payable to the lender was correct.
8. International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance PLC UK Branch [2013] EWCA Civ 39 – granted on 29 July 2013 by Lord Mance, Lord Wilson and Lord Reed.
The Court of Appeal had held that the insurer was liable to indemnify the employer in respect of a mesothelioma damages claim brought by a former employee for the whole of the damages paid out, not just a proportion calculated by reference to the period the insurer’s policy had covered the employer.
Notably, the case of Tamiz v Google Inc. was refused permission to appeal on the grounds that the application does not raise an arguable point of law. The case involved Google’s failure to remove allegedly defamatory statements about Mr Tamiz from its Blogger.com website. The Court of Appeal held in February 2013 that Google had not committed a “real and substantial tort”.
