Latest Cases

Feeds

*R (on the application of BG) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Administrative Court rejected the claimant Albanian national's challenges to the decision that she had not been trafficked, and to the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to certify her asylum claim on safe third-country grounds prior to a consideration of the trafficking claim and to detain her on her arrival in the United Kingdom. 

Khan v Palmer

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. PSLA of £3,800. The claimant sustained a soft tissue injury to the neck and upper back, and a soft tissue injury to the middle back area and right wrist. The judge awarded £3,400 for the spinal injuries and £400 for the wrist injury. 

Stenhouse v Legal Ombudsman

Counsel – Duty. The Administrative Court upheld the defendant Legal Ombudsman's determination, criticising the claimant barrister's handling of the interested party's formal complaint letter in his own letter. However, it quashed the remainder of the determination, including the decision to award the interested party the equivalent of her costs in the claimant's county court action against her for unpaid fees. 

Genc v Integrationsministeriet

European Union – Immigration. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council on the development of the Association set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Genc and the Danish Ministry of Integration concerning the rejection by the latter of his application for a residence permit in Denmark for the purposes of family reunification. 

Axon v Ministry of Defence

Equity – Breach of confidence. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing a claim for misuse of private information and/or breach of confidence, held that the claimant had not had a reasonable expectation of privacy in any of the information in issue and a source within the defendant Ministry of Defence (the MOD) had not owed him (as opposed to the MOD) a duty of confidence. 

Sparrow v Andre

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. 

Gap (ITM) Inc v British American Group Ltd

Trade mark – Opposition. The Chancery Division allowed Gap's appeal against a decision dismissing its opposition, under s 5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, to an application by British American Group Ltd (BAGL) to register 'The GapTravelGuide' as a trade mark in respect of the services of magazine publishing in Class 41. The hearing officer had erred in concluding that the average customer would generally be a business and there had been inconsistency in his reasoning in certain paragraphs of his decision. There was a risk of likelihood of confusion between the 'GAP' trade mark and the mark which BAGL sought to register. 

Coll (Listing Officer) v Mooney

Rates – Valuation list. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant listing officer's appeal against the decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England (the VTE), ordering her to alter the valuation list for the entry in respect of a property to show one entry for the property instead of two. The VTE had not misdirected itself in law and, on the evidence, its conclusion had been a reasonable one. 

*Ex parte British Broadcasting Corporation and others

Criminal law – Trial. In an appeal against an order imposed under s 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the case, for the first time, raised the question of how critical fair trial protections could be extended to prevent or control communications on social media. In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, revoked the s 4(2) order and ordered the various media organisations not to place any report of the criminal trial on their Facebook page(s), and, to disable the ability for users to post comments on their respective news websites on any published reports of the criminal trial. 

Khaira and others v Shergill and others

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. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

In the Chair: the roads ahead

Kirsty Brimelow KC, Chair of the Bar, sets our course for 2026

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases