Latest Cases

Immigration – Practice. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) determined that a consent order, purporting to transfer the claimant's judicial review proceedings commenced in the UT to the High Court, was a nullity. On a proper interpretation of the legislation, the assumption that it would be for the High Court to decide whether the claimant should be permitted to add a claim for a declaration of incompatibility was mistaken. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. PSLA of £2,200 with total damages of £3,330. The claimant suffered musculo-ligamentous strain to the cervical/upper thoracic region as a result of being hit from behind by the defendant's car. 

Negligence – Information or advice. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant solicitor had given negligent advice in relation to the identification of general conditions of service in the giving of advice in an employment termination agreement. If the claimant had been given correct non-negligent advice about the effect of the payment in lieu of notice clause on the vesting of the final 25 per cent of the long term incentive plan (LTIP), the CRU Group would have been able to avoid agreeing to the vesting of the remaining 25 per cent of the LTIP in the employment settlement agreement and side letter. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Novomatic AG against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office relating to opposition proceedings between Granini France and Novomatic AG concerning the application by the latter for registration of the figurative sign 'HOT JOKER' as an EU trade mark. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Medical negligence. PSLA of £10,000 with total damages of £17,500. The claimant suffered pain in her teeth, eventually leading to bone loss in the jaw and bone graft implantation surgery, as a result of the defendant's failure to carry out root canal treatment to treat an infection. 

Income tax – Capital gains. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), following a joint reference to it by the taxpayer and the Revenue, that corporate bonds purchased by the taxpayer and subsequently realised in whole or in part were qualifying corporate bonds within s 117 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 and thereby qualified for the exemption from capital gains tax contained in s 115 of that Act. 

Insolvency – Bankruptcy. The Chancery Division held that, providing the claimant gave certain undertakings, it would grant permission to appeal and allow an appeal and set aside a bankruptcy order made in respect of the claimant on the petition of a local authority. The petition had been based on council tax liability orders, which the claimant disputed. The court held that the judge ought to have adjourned the bankruptcy petition in order to await the outcome of the claimant's appeal to the Valuation Tribunal in respect of the liability orders. 

Company – Shares. The Chancery Division made findings concerning the ownership of property belonging to the claimant and the first defendant, who had formerly been in a long-term relationship. Among other things, it made findings concerning the ownership of the second and third defendant companies. 

Employment tribunal – Striking out. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the employment tribunal's decision to debar the appellant employer from taking any further part in the proceedings, whether in relation to liability or remedies, in both claims brought by the respondent employees. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had been right to have determined that the employment tribunal had given sufficient reasons for its decision to enable the parties, in particular the employer, to know why they had won or lost. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' applications for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's certification of their asylum claims on safe third country grounds and certification of their human rights claims as clearly unfounded. A return to Bulgaria would not risk exposing them to a breach of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and there was no significant risk of refoulement.