Latest Cases

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant Zimbabwean national's application for judicial review of his immigration detention, as there was no realistic, foreseeable prospect of returning him to Zimbabwe. Although the claimant would be likely, if released, to abscond and to commit further offences, the defendant Secretary of State could not justify his continued detention when he had made it clear that he would not agree to his return home and the Zimbabwean authorities would only accept returning nationals if they had a passport or wished to return. 

Building contract – Terms. The Technology and Construction Court determined preliminary issues which arose in the court of a claim brought by the claimant company in respect of building work carried out at a warehouse in Kent. The issues included, among other things, whether a clause concerning limitation and notice of complaint, had been incorporated into a sub-contract between the first defendant contractor and second defendant sub-contractor and, if so incorporated, whether it was subject to the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. 

Criminal law – Kidnapping. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a total sentence of two years and eight months' imprisonment for the offences of kidnapping, contrary to common law; assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; and making a threat to kill, contrary to s 16 of the Act, had been unduly lenient. In all the circumstances, a total sentence of four years and six months' imprisonment would be imposed accordingly. 

Divorce – Jurisdiction. The Family Division, applying art 19 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003, dismissed the wife's divorce petition where the jurisdiction of the French court had been established. The husband had previously filed a divorce petition in the French court and, accordingly, that court was first seised. The court should actively discourage the tactical filing of a second set of proceedings in England when the jurisdiction of the court of another member state had been established. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The Administrative Court held that the claimant heterosexual couple's ineligibility to register as civil partners, under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, was not incompatible with their rights under arts 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The state had fulfilled its obligations under the Convention by having made a means of formal recognition of their relationship available and the denial of a further means of formal recognition which was open to same-sex couples did not amount to unlawful state interference with the claimants' rights to family life or private life. 

Income tax – Partnership. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) which had allowed the taxpayer's claim for deduction of a payment made to a bank on the basis that it had been am expense incurred 'wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade' as required by s 34 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005. The tribunal held that it was in the context of the limited liability partnership (LLP) conducted collectively that the taxpayer had to justify the deduction of his payment and that the payment at issue had not been incurred 'wholly and exclusively' for the purposes of the LLP's trade. 

Sentence – Life imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Secretary of State's appeal, held that the evidence had not established that the claimant prisoner had been denied a real opportunity to demonstrate a sufficient reduction of risk by the end of the tariff period. It dismissed the claimant's cross-appeal, by which he sought to advance a claim under art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection held that the parent of a 16 year old young person could not consent to their confinement which, absent a valid consent, would amount to a deprivation of that young person's liberty for the purposes of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that it was for the local authority to protect a young person's right in such circumstances by applications to court to determine whether that young person was deprived to his liberty, is so, to seek authorisation for its continuance. 

Criminal law – Conspiracy. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to convert criminal property, contrary to s 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and s 327(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, had not been unsafe. The judge's ruling that there had been a case to answer was correct. Both elements of the offences had been potentially present and there had been evidence upon which the defendants could have been convicted. However, the judge had fallen into a degree of error when having sentenced three of the defendants for their offending. 

Terrorism – Prevention of. The Administrative Court determined that the claimant's appeal against the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to vary measures set out in his Terrorism Prevention Investigation Measures notice should be held at the same time as the statutory review of that notice. It further set out the procedure to be followed, given the Secretary of State's refusal to disclose in open proceedings all the material sought by the claimant.