Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal regarding the respondent's application to extend his leave to remain as a Tier 4 (general student) migrant. Where a sponsor college's licence was revoked and a student then re-submitted his application for further leave to remain with a new confirmation of acceptance for studies from a new provider, that re-submitted application amounted to a variation of the purpose of his application for leave that fell within para 34E of the Immigration Rules. Therefore, the mandatory requirements of the Immigration Rules had to be met at the time of re-submission. 

Practice – Parties. The Chancery Division allowed the claiming defendants' application for permission to join CL as a defendant to the counterclaim in a case concerning the alleged infringement of the claimants' copyright in the first defendant company's conduct of its therapy business. The counterclaim alleged that the claimants and CL had been negligent, both in their selection of a particular machine as a mandatory device for the administration of the therapy, and in their insistence on the continued use of the machine after problems allegedly became evident with it. The court held that CL had given direct advice to a number of the defendants, and that it could not be said that the claiming defendants had no real prospect of establishing their allegations against her. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection determined that it was in the best interests of the first respondent, a 74-year-old woman with dementia, to live at a care home, rather than returning to her home. The interference with her rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights caused by that decision was prescribed by law, proportionate to the identified risks and for a permitted purpose. 

Tort – Fraud. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimants claim for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding an investment made in the defendant's car hire company. On the fact the representations had not been made as alleged and in any event were not fraudulent. 

Company – Investment business. The Commercial Court allowed the claimant companies' claim for repayment of €1.3m, following the restructuring of two funds in a portfolio of assets into one. On the true construction of the termination agreement between the parties, the sum in issue was included in the amounts that the defendant company was bound to pay the first claimant. 

Value added tax – Exemptions. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners, holding that the BBC, as provider of services to The Open University (OU), was entitled to reclaim VAT on the production and broadcasting of services relating to the OU's courses. While the BBC was not a body governed by public law within the meaning of art 13A(1)(i) of Council Directive (EEC) 77/388, it did have the requisite educational aim to bring it within the education exemption in art 13A(1)(i) and was entitled to rely on the direct effect of that article because of the UK's failure to implement the Directive. 

Value added tax – Zero-rating. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal by Boxmoor Construction Ltd (Boxmoor) against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that certain supplies by Boxmoor were not zero-rated supplies in the course of construction of a building designed as a dwelling within Item 2 of Group 5 of Sch 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994, but were chargeable to VAT at the standard rate. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant had breached disclosure requirements in relation to the terms of a proprietary and freezing injunction relating to properties which the court had found he had had a beneficial interest in. He fell to be sentenced at a further hearing. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division ordered a re-consideration of an earlier fact-finding hearing, in which it had been concluded that a mother had caused the injuries to her 10-month-old son, where aspects of newly obtained medical evidence cast a sufficiently fresh perspective on the evidence previously adduced as to warrant review. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division found that the claimant's case against the defendant hospital in negligence succeeded, in that there had been negligence in failing to perform a timely brain scan and call an ambulance and that those failures caused the claimant's injury. The amount for pain, suffering and loss of amenity payable was £107,470, with a total award in the sum of £454,858.65.