Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that para 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules was not ultra vires. The Immigration Rules did not constitute 'rules' in the sense that a statute or a statutory instrument did, but it was not the case that they were statements of policy, subject to all the public law constraints on policies and discretionary powers, including the non-fettering principle. Further, although para 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules was in mandatory terms, the Secretary of State might depart from it by making a decision more beneficial to an applicant such as to grant discretionary leave to remain 'outside the rules' when the Immigration Rules provided that leave should not be given. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, in resolving ten preliminary issues, determined that warrants or authorisations under ss 5 or 7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 were lawful, and in principle complied with arts 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Chancery Division made preliminary rulings in a case brought by Streetmap.EU Ltd against Google Inc, alleging that Google had abused a dominant position in its provision of the Google Maps service. The court held that, among other things, if Google had held a dominant position, it had not committed an abuse. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland to face trial for 56 offences, including fraud and forgery, said to have been committed between April 1999 and March 2001. The offences had been adequately particularised, extradition was not oppressive due to the passage of time, and the private life of the appellant and his family had been outweighed by the public interest in extradition. 

Environment – Protection. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review of the removal of the exemption for renewable source electricity from the climate change levy. The defendants had not promoted any legitimate expectation in the claimants to the effect that the exemption would not be withdrawn without providing a lead time of two years or equivalent value and the decision had been proportionate. 

Criminal law – Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against conviction for having an offensive weapon, ruling that the act of bringing a cricket bat from his home into the street with an intention to use it to cause injury to those involved in an affray nearby fell within the ambit of s 1(4) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. Accordingly, the judge had not erred in rejecting a submission of no case to answer. 

Immigration – Leave to appeal. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant Nigerian nationals' application for judicial review of the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), refusing permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), dismissing their appeals against deportation decisions by the Secretary of State. The permission refusal had involved a material misunderstanding or misapplication of the law. 

Practice – Compromise of action. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal concerning the scope of a compromise agreement entered into in the wake of the 'phone hacking' scandal. The judge below had held that, as a matter of interpretation, certain claims in a second action fell within the scope of a compromise of an earlier action and struck out the paragraphs of the particulars of claim which raised those claims. The judge had been right for the reasons he had given. 

Negligence – Nuisance. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's claims under s 48A of the Water Resources Act 1994 for negligence and nuisance or loss and damage allegedly suffered by them as a result of the defendants' abstraction of water resulting from the construction of lakes. 

Adjudication – Adjudicator. The Technology and Construction Court held that, in three adjudications arising from the renovation of a hotel, the adjudicator had not had the necessary jurisdiction to decide the third adjudication, and so his decision was unenforceable. There had been no breach of the rules of natural justice in the second adjudication.