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. 

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. 

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 – 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. 

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. 

Medical negligence – Childbirth – Causation – Liability. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in a medical negligence action by pursuers who sued for damages in respect of hypoxic brain injury their daughter suffered at birth, the court accepted the pursuers' argument that the Lord Ordinary, who assoilzied the defenders, had failed to give adequate reasons for his decision, and that, taken with his excessive delay in producing his opinion, meant that there had not been a fair trial of the issues and his interlocutor should be recalled; however the only course that the pursuers invited the court to take—a remit to the Outer House for proof of new—was incompetent and the court was therefore left with only one option, which was to refuse the reclaiming motion. 

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. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appellants' appeal, held that arrangements made by the first appellant company, which was controlled by the second appellant, to enable members of the public to invest in land, amounted to collective investment schemes within the meaning of s 235 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and, thus, 'regulated activities' for the purpose of s 19 of the Act. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Chancery Division held that the legislative regime which permitted the recovery of an uplift under a conditional fee agreement (CFA) and after the event (ATE) insurance was not incompatible with art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. With respect to the CFA uplift, the laws of precedent required the House of Lords' decision in Campbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) ([2005] 4 All ER 793) to be followed and ATE premiums were not treated differently. 

Riot – Damage. The Supreme Court held that in assessing compensation for liability for riot damage by the respondent insurers against the police authority, s 2(1) of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 did not provide compensation for consequential loss including loss of profit and rent.