Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant, from Pakistan, obtained entry clearance as Tier 4 (General) student until May 2012 to undertake a course, which was subject to the condition, pursuant to s 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1977, prohibiting him from studying at an institution other than the sponsor body. The claimant left the sponsor body and completed his education at another institution. He was subsequently accepted onto a further study course at another institution, to commence July 2012, and applied for further leave to remain. The defendant Secretary of State refused his application and the claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the condition was valid and the claimant was plainly in breach of it. Further, the Secretary of State had not acted unfairly in refusing the application. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings for declaratory relief that the defendant Secretary of State had falsely imprisoned him and damages. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that a reasonable period of detention had not expired by the date upon which the claimant had actually been released. Further, there had not been any period during which it had been or ought to have been apparent to the Secretary of State that she would not be able to effect the claimant's deportation within a reasonable period. The Secretary of State's admitted periods of unlawful detention had been subsumed within an overall reasonable period. 

Practice – Claim form. The claimant's race discrimination claim was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the claimant's appeal, held that the service of a claim form by the court, in disregard of a claimant's notification that he wished to effect service himself, could constitute 'an error of procedure' within the meaning of CPR 3.10, which the court could rectify using it's general case management power. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimants challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, affirming the refusal of planning permission for the construction of 23 affordable housing units. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had not unfairly used or misunderstood a written policy statement not considered in the hearing. Further, she had considered all relevant considerations in determining the weight to be attached to the availability of alternative sites. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. S, aged 15, left her mother in Mexico for London with the practical and financial assistance of her father. The mother applied for a summary return of S to Mexico, but S objected on the basis that she was not receiving a reasonable education in Mexico. The Family Division, in allowing the application, held that there had been a wrongful removal or retention. While taking account of S's views, the relevant considerations pointed clearly to S returning to Mexico. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. An incident involving the employee occurred at a client's site and, as a result, the client banned him from the site. A charge of misconduct against the employee arising from the incident had been dismissed but, in the absence of any alternative employment, the employer dismissed him for some other substantial reason. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been fair. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal's finding as to the employer's steps to find the employee alternative employment was not perverse and had been entirely consistent with the evidence. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The Supreme Court considered issues surrounding 'linguistic analysis reports' provided by a commercial organisation (Sprakab) in asylum appeals. It examined the appropriateness of guidance given in RB (Linguistic evidence – Sprakab) ([2010] UKUT 329 (IAC)) (RB), particularly with respect to the anonymity of Sprakab's individual analysts and linguists. With regard to the particular respondents, the reports' comments on their knowledge of country and culture had been inadequately supported by the authors' expertise. Further, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had treated RB as binding and had failed to give critical analysis to the particular reports relied on. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. Following the claimant Russian national's divorce from a British citizen, the defendant Secretary of State refused her further leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The claimant sought judicial review, relying on the fact that her former spouse had worked elsewhere in the European Union during their marriage. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State's decision had been Wednesbury unreasonable in failing to take into account that the claimant had been exercising rights as a family member under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for some of the period she had been in the UK. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant's extradition to Spain was sought to face trial for terrorism-related offences allegedly occurring in 1991. The judge ordered his extradition and the appellant appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the domestic courts should be extremely reluctant to engage in evaluating the competing arguments about the local law of limitation in the requesting state and the judge had adequately considered the issue. Further, whatever the history might have been, the appellant would not be subject to torture on his return to Spain and would receive a trial that met the requirements of art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. In dismissing an employee's appeal, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, confirmed that the practice of employment tribunals to consult between themselves after the hearing and for the decision to be written by the employment judge alone, without a draft being provided to the lay members, if properly followed, was a legitimate procedure which satisfied the requirement that the decision and reasons should record the conclusions of all members of the tribunal.