Latest Cases

Employment – Contract of employment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld an injunction that prevented the defendant from acting in breach of certain of the post-termination restrictions contained within his contract of employment with the claimant. The starting point in the consideration of a claim by an employer to enforce an employee's negative covenant was that the ordinary remedy was an injunction. However, that was a discretionary remedy and might not be appropriate in all cases. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The Queen's Bench Division, held that on the facts and evidence, it could not be said that the defendant NHS Trust's negligence had caused the claimant's cerebral palsy which in turn had been caused by a shortage of oxygen (hypoxic ischemia) for a period of not less than 5 minutes and not more than 10 minutes immediately before his delivery. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division held dismissing a claim for damages for personal injury that although the defendant NHS Trust had been negligent in discharging the claimant without making arrangements for his blood to be re-taken, the delay had not caused the claimant to become 'appreciably worse'. 

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. 

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.