Latest Cases

Contract – Breach of contract. The Commercial Court made rulings in the claimant advisory company's claim for fees that, it alleged, it was owed by the defendant companies. The court made rulings on the interpretation of the relevant contract, and held that the amount due to the claimant was the amount received by the defendants, net of any payment of relevant fees.

Criminal law – Torture. 'A public official or person acting in an official capacity' in s 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was not confined to those acting on behalf of a recognised state. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that it covered any person who, in peace time or in a situation of armed conflict, acted otherwise than in a private and individual capacity for, or on behalf of, an organisation or body which exercised, or purported to exercise, the functions of government over the civilian population in the territory which it controlled and in which the relevant conduct occurred.

Libel and slander – Defamatory meaning. The first meaning of the words complained of by the claimant in her libel proceedings was factual and not defamatory, and the second meaning was an expression of opinion. The Queen's Bench Division further held that both defendant newspapers were entitled to summary judgment on the claimant's defamation claims against them, as the claimant had no real prospect of defeating an honest opinion defence.

Immigration – Ankara Agreement. Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey did not bite on remedies and, hence, the substitution of administrative review for a right of appeal by s 14 of the Immigration Act 2014 had not infringed the provision. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal against the judge's decision quashing the Secretary of State's decision, as precluded by the standstill provision in art 41.

Immigration – Tier 1 (General). If an applicant for leave to remain raised a human rights ground for the first time after the refusal of his application on other grounds and in response to a request by the Secretary of State under s 120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the Secretary of State had no obligation to treat and determine that response as an application for leave to remain on human rights grounds in the absence of the required form of application and payment. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, refused the applicants' permission to appeal.

Immigration – Tier 1 (Entrepreneur). The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had correctly held that the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had had no jurisdiction to hear the appellant's purported appeal against the respondent Secretary of State's decision that her application to extend her leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) was invalid. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the validity of the application could not be saved by the policy of evidential flexibility where the appellant had failed to tick a box providing authority to collect a fee.

Trade mark – Infringement. All of the defendant NHS Trust's uses of the sign 'RAID' (as a new model for patient assessment and discharge for individuals experiencing severe mental health crises and trauma) infringed the second claimant's registered trade marks, pursuant to ss 10(1) and 10 (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 or arts 9(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court so ruled in a trade mark infringement claim concerning the provision of psychiatry and mental health training courses to those caring for people with mental health and behavioural issues.

Civil procedure – Dismissal for delay. Court of Session: In an action for damages by a pursuer who was injured in a road traffic accident involving a police vehicle, an action which was raised early in 2004, and was then sisted to enable the pursuer to apply for legal aid, legal aid being granted in May 2004, but which remained sisted until the sist was recalled in January 2017, the court refused an application by the defender to have the action dismissed due to inordinate and inexcusable delay by the pursuer and/or her former agents in progressing her claim, resulting in unfairness, as it was not persuaded that the circumstances of the case were such that there was a substantial risk that justice could not be done if the proceedings were allowed to continue.

Commercial contract – Construction – Contractual notice – Validity of termination notice. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuer sought declarator that it had validly terminated agreements governing installations of roof-mounted photovoltaic systems on the defender's properties and the defender challenged the validity of the termination notice the pursuer relied on, the court held that the termination notice (accepted itself to be sufficient in terms) was nonetheless not preceded, as it required to be, by a written notice requiring payment that complied with cl 8.4.3 of the agreement, and it was therefore invalid.

Immigration – Judicial review – Tier 1 General Migrant – Refusal of indefinite leave to remain. Court of Session: Granting a petition by Nigerian spouses who challenged a decision refusing their applications for indefinite leave to remain on the basis that in light of his character and conduct it would be undesirable to allow the first petitioner to remain in the UK, a conclusion based on a finding that during the period when he had had leave to remain he had declared different amounts of income to HM Revenue and Customs and to UK Visas and Immigration, the court held that in the absence of any assessment of whether there was evidence of deliberate misdeclaration as opposed to innocent error, the decision was unreasonable according to Wednesbury principles.

Northern Ireland – Reference. The Supreme Court ruled on a reference from the Attorney General for Northern Ireland. The intervening party contended that the matters on which the reference was sought were not devolution issues. The court held that, while there was considerable force in the arguments presented by the intervening party, they did not have the quality of unanswerability that would customarily be required to dispose of proceedings on a preliminary issue. Because of the course that it was proposed to take in relation to the proceedings, it was not appropriate to say anything further about the merits of the competing claims made by the parties. Further, a stay on part of the proceedings would be lifted.

Trade mark – Infringement. The appellant company's appeal against a decision of the hearing officer of the UK Intellectual Property Office, revoking trade marks for non-use, failed. The Chancery Division held that the hearing officer's decision had not been wrong in law, and that, among other things, the evidence filed by the appellant had failed to show genuine use of the trade marks during the relevant period.

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. In a claim for libel against defendants domiciled in France, the claimant had shown a good arguable case for the cause of action and other relief which he sought. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division held that the court had jurisdiction to hear the claim. It also held that the claimant would not be granted an injunction to restrain continued publication of the online article, on the basis that he had not shown a good arguable case that his centre of interests was in England and Wales.

Social welfare – Universal credit. On the true construction of reg 54 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013, SI 2013/376 (concerning the calculation of universal credit), the amount of the earned income of a claimant in respect of an assessment period was to be based on, but would not necessarily be the same as, the amount of earned income actually received in that assessment period. The Divisional Court so ruled concerning judicial review claims brought by the claimant employees, who were paid monthly and had occasionally received two months' salaries during one assessment period. The court held that the defendant Secretary of State for Work and Pensions had erred in treating the claimants' combined salary for those two months' as earned income in respect of that assessment period for the purposes of calculating the amount of universal credit payable, in circumstances where the salaries were referable to two months.

Housing – Homelessness. The review decision of the respondent local authority in respect of the appellant's homelessness under s 175(3) of the Housing Act 1996 would be quashed. The Court of Appeal, (Civil Division), held, that the respondent had failed to ask itself the correct questions and had failed to follow correct procedure, all of which impacted the decision making process and the decision not to declare the appellant 'homeless'.

Immigration – Leave to remain. The destitution domestic violence concession did not apply to the claimant, as she had not been on a route to settlement and there was no contravention of domestic or European law. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed her application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing leave to remain outside the Immigration Rules on the basis of the concession.

Landlord and tenant – Possession. In a landlord and tenant dispute, where the respondent landlord had taken possession of the property and then sold it to a third party, both judges below had been right to hold that the appellant tenant could not succeed in her claim for unjust enrichment without first setting aside the possession order. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the tenant's appeal. It also held, obiter, that even if the possession order had been set aside, it was too late for the County Court to grant the tenant relief against forfeiture.

Tort – Breach of agreement. The appellant's behaviour of obtaining goods without presentation of the proper documents was a sufficient act of procurement to breach a previously made agency agreement of which he had had knowledge. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, however, held that the indemnity order would be amended in order that the appellant did not have to pay an unreasonable amount.

Contempt of court – Committal. The respondent was sentenced to 8 months' imprisonment for 29 breaches of court orders made in respect of proceedings brought against him and others, concerning the provision of estate planning and professional trustee services. The Chancery Division held that the breaches of the orders (including orders for disclosure and freezing injunctions) had been very serious and deliberate. It further considered that, had it not been for the evidence of the respondent's serious mental health problems, the sentence would have been significantly longer.

Criminal law – Proceeds of crime. The claimant's application for summary judgment against the third defendant in the proceedings was dismissed. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant had failed to establish that the defendant had no real prospect of success. The case was complex and significant factual disputes remained that could only be properly resolved by a trial judge, with access to all the evidence.