Latest Cases

Journalist – Accreditation. The process by which the claimant journalist had been refused press accreditation to attend the Labour Party conference in September 2017 by Sussex Police had been unlawful and that decision had to be quashed. However, the Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review against the second defendant Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police.

Immigration – Leave to remain. An application for leave to remain which the applicant was not permitted to make under s 3C(4) of the Immigration Act 1971 did not extend the applicant's leave under s 3C(2) because the Secretary of State refused that application on its merits, rather than rejecting it as invalid. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant Pakistani national's appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), dismissing his application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's refusal of further leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant.

European Union – Transport. Article 23(1) in conjunction with art 2(18) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 should be interpreted as meaning that, when indicating air fares for intra-Community air services, air carriers who did not express those fares in euros were required to choose a local currency that was objectively linked to the service offered. That was the case in particular of the currency which was legal tender in the member state in which the place of departure or arrival of the flight was located. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the indication by the respondent air carrier, established in Germany, of air fares in pounds sterling for a flight from London to Stuttgart.

European Union – Insurance. In a case relating to the recovery of insurance proceeds, paid following the sinking of a vessel, the judge had not erred in holding that the tort element of the claimant underwriters' claim against the defendant bank could proceed in the English courts, but that the English court had no jurisdiction to entertain the underwriters' claim in restitution against the bank. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the underwriters' appeal and the bank's cross-appeal.

Tort – Liability. In a fraudulent misrepresentation claim, the judge by determining that it was fair just and reasonable for liability to be imposed on the agent's principle in all the circumstances of the case, had applied the wrong legal test for determining ostensible authority. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, accordingly determined that the only fair and proper course was to remit for re-hearing the issue as to whether W was vicariously liable on the basis of R's ostensible authority.

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant's claim against the defendant for defamation was struck out and the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant was entitled to rely on previous observations made by various judges that the claimant was a vexatious claimant who had commenced multiple actions which had been characterised as being without merit. The defendant was thus entitled to plead and prove the whole of the claimant's litigious conduct by way of justification. However, even if the decisions and observations of the other judges had been inadmissible for the purposes of establishing the defence of justification, the source materials that underpinned those decisions and observations were still admissible as hearsay.

European Union – Employment. Article 1(2) of Council Directive (EEC) 86/653 should be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a person who had continuing authority to negotiate the sale or the purchase of goods on behalf of another person, or to negotiate and conclude such transactions on behalf of and in the name of that person, performed his activities from the latter's business premises did not prevent him from being classified as a 'commercial agent' within the meaning of that provision, provided that that fact did not prevent that person from performing his activities in an independent manner, which was for the referring court to ascertain. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the payment for services and commission following the breach of an agreement between two companies.

Bank – Declaration. The Bank of New York Mellon, London Branch, failed in its application for declarations against the defendant company, Essar Steel India Ltd, concerning the amounts due and payable in respect of certain unsecured notes issued by the defendant, which were governed by a trust deed. The Financial List held that, on the facts of the case, it would be inappropriate to make the declarations sought, because if they were to have an effect on Indian insolvency proceedings concerning the defendant, that would amount to an improper interference in a foreign process being conducted by a party not before the court, namely the insolvency resolution professional appointed in respect of the Indian insolvency proceedings.

European Union – Employment. Article 1(3) of Directive (EC) 2003/88, read in conjunction with art 2(2) of Directive (EEC) 89/391, had to be interpreted as meaning that the work performed by a foster parent under an employment contract with a public authority, which consisted in taking in a child, integrating that child into his or her household and ensuring, on a continuous basis, the harmonious upbringing and education of that child, did not come within the scope of Directive 2003/88. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning a request made by some foster parents to receive an increase in their base salary in respect of work performed, among other things, during statutory leave and public holidays.

Inheritance tax – Exemptions and relief. The First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) had correctly decided that the deceased's livery business had not consisted wholly or mainly of making or holding investments and had accordingly been 'relevant business property' thereby qualifying for business property relief under s 105 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984. Consequently, taking the view that the FTT had applied the correct legal test and the conclusion it had reached had been one that it had been entitled to reach on the basis of the evidence before it, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the Revenue and Customs Commissioners' appeal against the FTT's decision.