Latest Cases

Costs – Claim. The claimant chairman of the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forums sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to bring into force ss 44 and 46 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in relation to mesothelioma claims. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had not conducted a proper review of the likely effect of the Act reforms on mesothelioma claims, as required by s 48(1) of the Act. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the judge's decision to send his case to the Secretary of State for her to decide whether he should be extradited to Albania following his convictions there for premeditated murder and possession of firearms. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, followed the decision of the High Court of Justiciary Appeal Court in Kapri v Lord Advocate ([2014] HCJAC 33), which found that there was no evidence of judicial corruption in Albania, as it was not demonstrably wrong or substantially undermined by evidence not before that court. Further, there was no basis for the appellant to assert that he would not receive a re-trial, given the guarantee by the Albanian Ministry of Justice. 

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. 

Natural justice – Judge. The appellant doctor was struck off by a Fitness to Practise Panel (FTPP). He appealed the FTPP's determination on the basis that, inter alia, he had not had a fair hearing because the legal assessor had made disclosures which, he contended, indicated actual or potential bias. The legal assessor and the judge sitting in the appeal had been members of the same barristers' chambers and had a continuing professional relationship. The appellant sought that the judge recuse himself. The judge would recuse himself on the ground that the fair-minded observer, knowing the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that he was biased. 

Land – Sale of land. The claimant brought proceedings, seeking an order for the sale of two properties, which were assets of an informal partnership with his brother, the defendant. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's application for a pre-emptive sale order. The court was not prepared to make the draconian pre-emptive sale order sought unless and until independent solicitors and estate agents had been appointed and some attempt had been made to assess the present market. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The proceedings concerned the care of a young man, M, who was autistic. His parents, especially his mother, E, contended that care for M had been ineffective and that his condition had been the result of the use of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination. The local authority sought orders stating that E had invented symptoms and failed to assist with M's care. The Court of Protection granted the orders and refused E's application to be reinstated as M's deputy. 

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. 

Company – Director. The defendants committed a number of offences, including fraud, connected to the retention of deposit money by a letting company. They were found criminally responsible, but the court declined to make an order for disqualification. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills applied for an order disqualifying the defendants, but the Chancery Division held that it was not appropriate to make such an order and was unfair that the defendants should be exposed to the same claim on two occasions. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Tifosi Optics, Inc (Tifosi) seeking annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between Tom Tailor GmbH and Tifosi relating to the application by Tifosi for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark. 

Income tax – Emoluments from office or employment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) ruled upon issues arising out of a decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) concerning a number of assessments for PAYE and national insurance contributions served on the taxpayers in respect of certain sub-trusts established in the name of individual employees of companies in the Murray group (the taxpayers). The tribunal dismissed the taxpayers' appeals, save in respect of certain termination payments, which would be remitted to the FTT for the purpose, amongst other things, of proceeding as accords in relation to those payments.