Latest Cases

Immigration – Appeal. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant Afghani national's application for judicial review of the refusal of the defendant Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) to grant permission to appeal against the refusal of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) to fully address his appeal under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, in the circumstances, relief would be declined. 

Shipping – Charterparty. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant charterer's application for permission to appeal against the decision of an arbitrator regarding the financial consequences of the detention of the vessel that was the subject of an agreement between the parties. The arbitrator had not erred in his interpretation of the contract. Further permission to appeal had been required, and would be refused because the statutory criterion in the Arbitration Act 1996 had not been fulfilled. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant charity's application for judicial review of amendments to the Immigration Rules concerning the admission of adult dependent relatives. It rejected arguments that the rules were outwith the defendant Secretary of State's power, arbitrary and unreasonable, and incompatible with art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Immigration – Illegal entry and other offences. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the imposition of civil penalties imposed on the appellants under the carriers' liability provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, following the discovery, upon a search in the United Kingdom immigration control centre at Calais, of three Afghan nationals in the trailer of a heavy goods vehicle operated by the first appellant and driven by the second appellant. 

Civil procedure – Interim interdict – Construction of will and codicil. Court of Session: In proceedings in which the pursuers contended that a will and codicil should be read as requiring the defender to ensure that their rights to development profits were guaranteed in all time coming by the imposition of a burden on the title to an estate, and that unless interdicted he would convey the estate to a third party free of arrangements giving effect to the condition which ought to attend the title, the court recalled an interim interdict granted earlier, holding that the pursuers' averments and submissions disclosed at best a weak prima facie case and that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of interim interdict. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division ruled on the re-hearing of cross-applications for child arrangements orders in respect of a six-year-old child, T, whose mother had died. It held that, in all the circumstances, T's interests would be best served by her remaining in the care of the family friends of the mother and a child arrangements order would be made that T lived and made her primary home with them. However, the father and his partner had to play a full part in T's life and childhood and a further child arrangements order would be made which provided for, among other things, contact and visits during the school holidays. 

Value added tax – Supply of goods and services. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the action brought by way of judicial review by Telefonica Europe plc and Telefonica UK Ltd challenging a decision by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to change the method by which those companies had calculated the proportion of the monthly charge to customers for the supply of access to the mobile telephone network that related to such access used and enjoyed by customers outside the European Union. 

Construction contract – Arbitration. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claimant company's appeal seeking variation or remission of a partial award made by an arbitrator in proceedings concerning a construction contract incorporating the JCT Conditions SBCSub/C2005 Rev 1 2007. The arbitrator had not erred in law in respect of his application of the burden of proof, his understanding of the principles set out in Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v Mackay[2012] All ER (D) 213 (Jul), and his finding that the defendant was entitled to statutory interest. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division refused the applicant father's application in respect of temporary removal of the children to Algeria and another European Destination. It also refused the father's application to have the children circumcised in accordance with the Muslim faith. However it allowed the father an increase in overnight staying contact despite the mother's opposition. 

Negligence – Cause of action. The Queen's Bench Division struck out the claimants' case for negligence on the basis that it would not be fair just and reasonable for the defendant NHS Trust to impose a duty of care in circumstances where the defendant had just been treating the patient and not his wider family and that where the scope of the alleged duty had effectively been to inform a third party of a diagnosis reached in respect of a patient, there was insufficient proximity between the parties for such a duty to be imposed.