Latest Cases

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. 

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The General Court of the European Union upheld the action by Cezar Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjne Dariusz Bogdan Niewiński (Cezar) for annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) concerning invalidity proceedings between Poli-Eco Tworzywa Sztuczne sp. z o.o. and Cezar relating to the application by Cezar for registration of a Community design intended to be applied to 'skirting boards'. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant pharmaceutical company brought a claim against the defendant laboratories in relation to the repackaging of imported pharmaceutical products from abroad without the relevant license. The defendant put in a defence regarding the involvement of a sister company. The Queen's Bench Division held that on the evidence it was arguable that some of the pharmaceutical products were invoiced and supplied to the sister company, which were then delivered by the claimant to the defendant laboratories for repackaging. The court gave the defendant conditional leave to defend. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to Lithuania to stand trial for unlawful imprisonment and a public order offence. He contended that his extradition was barred by s 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, as he posed a real and immediate risk of suicide. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that there had been no evidence to show that the Lithuanian authorities would not be aware of and would not comply with their obligations, which were to ensure the continued safety of the appellant. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000)(the Customs Code), and the principle of respect for the rights of the defence under European Union law. The requests were made in proceedings between Kamino International Logistics BV and another company and the Staatssecretaris van Financiën, concerning the application of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence in connection with the Customs Code. 

Contract – Termination. A Brazilian firm (Fibria) sought to cancel a contract with a South Korean company (the company), which was in administration. The contract was governed by English law. The company submitted that, on the true construction of the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1030, Fibria could not cancel the contract. The Companies Court held that, on the proper construction of the Regulations, it had no power to order a stay in relation to Fibria's entitlement to serve a termination notice under the contract, nor could it make an order restraining Fibria from serving such a notice. 

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. 

Warrant – Search warrant. Search warrants made and executed, and restraint orders made, concerning the claimants were subsequently quashed. The defendant court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the Revenue and Customs Commissioners' application, under s 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, for the retention of the seized material and the claimants sought judicial review. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the meaning and intent of s 59 of the Act was plain. The Crown Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application by the Revenue under s 59 of the Act. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal refused the employee permission to amend his claim of detrimental treatment due to trade union activities to include a claim of victimisation because, inter alia, the employee had been unable to provide a legal basis for the claim. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held, inter alia, that there was a clear legal basis for the amendment and the tribunal's refusal had been vitiated by error of law. Accordingly, the employee's appeal would be allowed and permission to amend would be granted. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The Queen's Bench Division awarded the claimant doctor £45,000by way of damages for libel, following the publication of an article in the Daily Mail and Mail Online. The court held that the defamatory statements made about the claimant had not been justified, the facts and matters on which the comments had been made, had not been proved and the article could not be defended as honest comment.