Costs recovery scheme was compatible with ECHR, art 6
Coventry & Ors v Lawrence & Anor [2015] UKSC 50
The Supreme Court held that the costs recovery scheme for civil litigation under the Access to Justice Act 1999 (now replaced by the scheme under LASPO 2012) is not incompatible with the ECHR, art 6 or the first protocol, art 1.
The Secretary of State erred in determining the ordinary residence of a young man with learning disabilities
R (Cornwall Council) v Secretary of State for Health and another case [2015] UKSC 46
Appeal allowed by a majority of 4-1; the ordinary residence of the young man with learning disabilities (PH) was held to be in Wiltshire at the relevant time. Held: the Secretary of State’s reasons for selecting Cornwall, which started not from assessment of the duration and quality of PH’s actual residence but from an attempt to ascertain his “base” by reference to his family relationships, could not be supported.
Injunction restraining publication discharged, where tort of inflicting intentional mental shock was concerned
Rhodes v OPO (by his litigation friend BHM) & Anor [2015] UKSC 32
Appeal against an interim injunction banning the publication of an autobiography detailing the sexual abuse suffered by the appellant when he was a child. The claim had been brought on behalf of his son, OPO, on the ground that the publication would intentionally cause him psychological harm. OPO had been diagnosed by one psychologist as suffering from Asperger’s syndrome, attention deficit hyperactivity order, dyspraxia and dysgraphia. The issue before the Court was whether the publication should not be allowed pending trial based on the tort in Wilkinson v Downton [1897] QB 57 (intentional infliction of mental shock). Held: Appeal allowed.
Duty to accommodate those who were “vulnerable” considered
Hotak & Ors v London Borough of Southwark [2015] UKSC 30
Under the Housing Act 1996, s 188, local authorities have a duty to secure that accommodation is made available for applicants who are homeless and have “priority need” (defined as including persons who are “vulnerable as a result of old age … or other special reason.”). Held: Inter alia, “vulnerable” carries a necessary implication of relativity as it can fairly be said that anyone who is homeless is vulnerable.
Whether the respondents had known or suspected that arrangement would be contrary to Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
R v GH [2015] UKSC 24
The Court unanimously allowed the appeal, finding that the respondents were entering into or becoming concerned in an arrangement which they knew or suspected would facilitate the retention, use or control of criminal property, contrary to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s 328(1). It clarified that in the present case, the character of the money – although lawful at the moment of payment – changed on being paid into the bank accounts.