Latest Cases

Limitation of action – Foreign limitation periods. The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Iraqi claimants, who alleged that they had suffered unlawful detention and/or physical maltreatment at the hands of British armed forces in Iraq, against a decision by the Court of Appeal in which it had found in favour of the Ministry of Justice that an English court was bound to disregard any impediment arising from Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Order 17 because that order was not a law with respect to limitation which the English courts were bound to apply. The court ruled that the Court of Appeal had been right to say that CPA Order 17 had no legal effect in an English court. It ruled that, in the English proceedings, the relevant law was the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984. The CPA Order 17 had no relevance to English proceedings because it had no application outside Iraq and had never impeded resort to the English court. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The Commercial Court dismissed an application by the owners of a vessel for relief from sanctions (initially under CPR 3.9) and for an extension of time to comply with an unless order to deliver up an electronic archive in respect of a claim brought against the defendant war risk underwriters, following an explosion on a vessel, which had been struck out for non-compliance with the order. The court found that the owners' story about their inability to hand over the archive was a fabrication and that, on a proper analysis, what the owners were really seeking (as reflected by their amended application notice) was a variation of the order to substitute for the absolute obligation to disclose the archive, in other words an application under CPR 3.1(7). The court ruled that there could be no question of any relief against sanctions in circumstances where breach of the unless order had not been remedied and there was no basis for a variation or revocation of the order or for relief from sanctions applying the 'Denton' three-staged test. Accordingly, the claim remained struck out. 

Occupier's liability – Visitor. The Court of Appeal Civil Division dismissed the defendant's appeal against a finding of a recorder that the claimant's accident had been caused by the defendant's breach of duty of care and/or breach of s 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of a claim for judicial review of the respondent local planning authority's decision to use its powers, under s 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to clear agricultural land located in the Green Belt of caravans occupied by the appellant and family members, which had been stationed there in breach of planning controls since 2009. Among other things, the appellant had failed to show that it had been irrational for the authority to have decided that enough was enough and that the time had arrived at which it would be reasonable and proportionate, in light of all relevant interests, to proceed to implement the enforcement notice, the validity of which had been upheld on appeal to the Secretary of State.

Capital gains tax – Disposal of assets. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant taxpayer's appeal, held that enterprise investment scheme relief applied in priority to taper relief, when calculating capital gains tax, in a case in which the asset disposed of had been used for both business and non-business purposes.

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant Pakistani national's appeal concerning the respondent Secretary of State's refusal of his application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant, as she was not satisfied that the English language proficiency requirement in the Immigration Rules had been met. Whatever might have been the subjective intention of the Secretary of State in drafting the relevant 'evidential flexibility policy', it was not accepted that it could be read as if circumscribed by para 245AA of the Immigration Rules. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Algerian national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions revoking his leave to enter and detaining him immediately after an interview concerning his proposed marriage to a Slovakian national resident in the United Kingdom. 

Landlord and tenant – Repair. The Chancery Division allowed the claim of the tenant art gallery concerning works carried out by the defendant landlord on the building where the gallery was situated. The court held that, among other things, the landlord had not acted reasonably in exercising its right to build combined with its scaffolding rights under the terms of the lease and had thereby been in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. In the circumstances, the tenant was entitled to damages. 

Terrorism – Prevention of. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed in part an appeal by the Treasury against the judge's determination of a preliminary issue regarding the claimant bank's entitlement to claim directly against the Treasury for the loss of earnings suffered by another bank of which the claimant was a 60% shareholder (PIB). PIB had standing to bring its own claim pursuant to s 63 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 and s 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, the claimant had no standing to bring the claim as a matter of Strasbourg case law. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' challenge to the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing their written representations appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal to grant planning approval. The inspector had not failed to apply the relevant legislation, provide adequate reasoning or make sufficient inquiry.