Menu My portfolio: 0

Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Court of Appeal clarifies how Qualified One Way Costs Shifting applies to mixed claims

Brown v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1724

The Court held that automatic QOCS protection applies to claims for damages in respect of personal injuries, and that this would include all claims consequential upon that personal injury, including a claim for lost earnings as a result of the injury and the consequential time off work. The Court held that claims for other types of damages did not attract automatic protection.

However, LJ Coulson commented that if proceedings can fairly be described in the round as a personal injury case then, unless there are exceptional features of the non-personal injury claims, he would expect the judge deciding costs to exercise his or her discretion in order to achieve a ‘cost neutral’ result. 

Court of Appeal considers UK’s obligations to family members recognised as refugees

Secretary of State for the Home Department v JS (Uganda) [2019] EWCA Civ 1670

This appeal concerns the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees (“the Refugee Convention”) and the protection against refoulement afforded to foreign criminals subject to deportation orders, who have previously been granted refugee status linked to the refugee status of a family member.  The case raises issues of construction as to the definition of “refugee” under Article 1A(2) and the true construction of the “cessation” provision under Article 1C(5) of the Refugee Convention.

Court of Appeal rules on procedural routes for human rights challenges to judicial acts

Mazhar v Lord Chancellor [2019] EWCA Civ 1558

This was an appeal against an order of Sir Ernest Ryder SPT by which he dismissed the Appellant’s claim for a declaration that an order made by Mostyn J, under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, authorising his removal to, and detention in, a hospital was an unlawful violation of his rights under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The main question that arose in this appeal concerned whether the Human Rights Act permits a person to bring a claim in the High Court for a declaration that an earlier order of that Court was an unlawful violation of his Convention rights, or whether the claimant’s only remedy is an appeal against that order.

The Court dismissed the appeal against the order made by the SPT but for different reasons from those that he gave and granted permission to appeal out of time against Mostyn J’s order of 22 April 2016.

Court of Appeal orders a local authority to compensate for the non-inclusion of educational placement costs in a Care Act 2014 personal budget

R (CP) v North East Lincolnshire Council [2019] EWCA Civ 1614

The appellant is a 22-year old woman with global development delay, learning difficulties and an autistic spectrum disorder. She appealed the against a previous high court decision to dismiss her challenge to the respondent’s failure or refusal to make certain payments to her. The appellant attended a weekday placement at an establishment run by a charity. The Council paid £10,800 per annum into the appellant’s personal budget for her attendance, since 17th November 2017. This JR relates to the Council’s refusal to pay her costs of attendance during an earlier period from 11th April 2016 to 17th November 2017.
Held: The fact that the appellant’s personal budget did not include the cost of attendance at an agreed educational placement was a “clear breach” of the Care Act 2014 and of statutory guidance, which she could challenge by judicial review, despite an FTT appeal relating to overlapping issues in her Children and Families Act 2014 Education and Health Care Plan. The Council was liable to compensate her for her accrued right to the cost in question.

Representative data protection action decision

Lloyd v Google LLC [2019] EWCA Civ 1599

Brought on behalf of an estimated 4.4 million iPhone users, this representative claim concerns Google’s gathering and exploitation of browser generated information on Apple’s Safari browser. Warby J dismissed the claimant’s application for permission to serve Google outside the jurisdiction. The main issues raised by the appeal are: (a) whether the judge was right to […]