Latest Cases

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant Secretary of State's appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT), allowing the respondent Jamaican national's appeal against a deportation order. The UT had not followed the relevant authorities as to the weight to be given to the public interest in deportation. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that following an assessment of the patient the presumption that the patient had the capacity to marry and engage in sexual relations as defined under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had not been displaced. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant Cameroonian national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision that the claimant's further submissions did not amount to a fresh asylum and/or human rights claim and that her prior certification decision should be maintained. The Secretary of State had acted irrationally and the fresh claim aspect of the decision had also breached wider public law principles. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division granted certain declaratory relief in respect of the existence of constructive trusts following an application by the applicant pursuant to s 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882. The focus of the application was a dispute about the beneficial ownership of four central London properties which both parties owned, or in which either or both had had an interest during their former relationship and which had been used to guarantee two loans taken out by the parties. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld a finding by the employment tribunal (the tribunal) that the employee had not suffered direct discrimination and harassment because of/related to her religion or belief. The tribunal had concluded that the employee had not been subjected to disciplinary process or sanction because she had manifested her religious belief in voluntary and consensual exchanges with a colleague, but because she had subjected a subordinate to unwanted and unwelcome conduct. The treatment of which the employee had complained was because of, and related to, those inappropriate actions; not any legitimate manifestation of her belief. The tribunal had approached its task correctly and the appeal could not stand given the tribunal's factual findings. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the Children's Guardian and the local authority against an order stating that the Hungarian court was better placed to hear a case regarding two children and that transferring the case to Hungary would be in the children's best interests. The children were Hungarian nationals born in the United Kingdom to Hungarian parents. The transfer request would be set aside and the case would be returned to the Family Division. 

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2, 44 and 48(3) of Directive (EC) 2004/18. The request had been made in proceedings between Partner Apelski Dariusz (Partner) and the Warsaw municipal cleansing authority concerning Partner's exclusion from the procedure for the award of a public contract for the comprehensive mechanical cleansing of roadways of the city of Warsaw (Poland) in the years from 2014 to 2017. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division made a declaration of parentage in favour of a father in circumstances where he and his partner had undergone IVF treatment using donor sperm and where they had signed the relevant consent forms. It had later transpired that they had signed consent forms under the 'old' scheme, but had commenced treatment after the 'new' scheme introduced by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 had come into effect. The court held that the signed forms were sufficient to comply with the requirements of the 2008 Act and operated a valid and effective consent notwithstanding the change in the statutory regime. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Chancery Division held that, in the course of proceedings concerning three Sikh temples, the correct interpretation of an order made by the Supreme Court was that the claimants were entitled to immediate detailed assessment of all of the relevant costs. The master had dismissed the application of the first to fourth defendants for an order setting aside a notice of commencement of detailed assessment which had been served by the claimants. He had been amply entitled to exercise his discretion as he had done, and there were no grounds on which the court could or ought to interfere. 

Negligence – Vehicles. The Queen's Bench Division allowed a claim for damages for personal injury and consequential loss following a vehicular collision which, through the events that followed, had resulted in the claimant's leg being amputated. The defendant was liable for the entirety of the incident which had flowed directly from his negligent act in reversing into the claimant without having kept a proper look out. The damages would be reduced by 60% to reflect the claimant's contributory negligence in having left his car's ignition on and the car in neutral, when he had gone to stand behind the car to inspect the damage.