Latest Cases

Negligence – Cause of action. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant had failed to establish liability on the part of the defendant bank for any exposure to asbestos during the course of her employment from 1978 to 1986 and therefore her claim for personal injury for mesothelioma against the defendant failed. 

Prison – Prisoner. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant determinate sentence prisoner's application for judicial review of the defendant Parole Board's decision not to direct his re-release following his recall to prison, held, among other things, that it could not arguably be said that the Parole Board had applied the wrong test. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant Indian citizen's appeal against a decision by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) refusing him permission to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of a decision made by an Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) in Mumbai, on behalf of the respondent Secretary of State, refusing him a business visitor visa to the United Kingdom. Among other things, it considered how an ECO should deal with a second application based on different evidence to that furnished where an earlier application had been refused, under para 320(7A) of the Immigration Rules, before making a decision under para 320(7B) of the Rules. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed the claimant Philippine national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing to grant her leave to remain in the United Kingdom. There was no merit in her arguments relating to historic injustice and to her own pregnancy, nor was there merit in the issue of whether the applicant should be expected to make an application from her own country. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. Following the defendant's conviction of conspiracy to import cocaine, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, in significant respects, the judge's approach in calculating the recoverable amount had been seriously flawed in a way which resulted in an excessive confiscation order being made. On the facts, the confiscation order in the sum of approximately £3.6m would be quashed and substituted for the sum of £500,000. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Queen's Bench Division ruled on liability for costs, pursuant to CPR 36.13(5), following the claimant's acceptance in February 2016 of the defendant NHS trust's CPR Pt 36 offer, which offer had, in fact, expired in June 2015, it having been made earlier that month. 

Criminal procedure – Disclosure – Prosecutor's duty to disclose information. Sheriff Court: In applications to the court for a ruling on disclosure by three accused who had pled not guilty to a summary complaint containing 16 charges mostly alleging contraventions of road traffic and regulatory legislation relevant to dealing in motor vehicles, the court concluded that a substantial amount of information sought by the defence was within the scope of the prosecutor's duty to disclose information. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection considered four test cases in which it was thought that there was no family member or friend who could be appointed as a representative under r 3A of the Court of Protection Rules 2007, SI 2007/1744. The court held that, among other things, the primary responsibility to provide a resource that enabled it either to make such appointments or to otherwise meet the minimum procedural requirements in cases in the classes represented by the test cases fell on the Secretary of State, or on the Secretary of State together with the applicant authorities. 

Company – Insolvency. The Chancery Division dismissed an application seeking declarations that the appointment of the first three respondents as joint administrators of a company had been a nullity because of an alleged prior floating charge in favour of another company. The court allowed a cross-application by the respondents, the joint administrators and Nationwide Building society, to strike out the substantive application having found that Nationwide's predecessor (Derbyshire), had had a qualifying floating charge for the purposes of s 251 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which Nationwide had acquired and that the company had never acquired the hotel in question and its adjoining land otherwise than subject to the terms of Derbyshire's legal charge and debenture. Accordingly, nothing had had the effect of depriving the Derbyshire debenture of its status of a floating charge as created and Nationwide had not been not precluded from making the appointment of the joint administrators. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerned the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The request had been made in proceedings between Flight Refund Ltd, a company established in the United Kingdom, and Deutsche Lufthansa AG, a company established in Germany, concerning a debt in respect of compensation claimed on account of a flight delay.