Latest Cases

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.

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.

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.

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.