Latest Cases

Costs – Security for costs. The claimants obtained permission to appeal a judgment where the defendant's construction of a agreement was favoured by the judge. The defendant applied for security for the costs of the appeal on the basis, inter alia, that there was reason to believe that they would be unable to pay the defendant's costs of an appeal if ordered to do so. The Court of Appeal allowed the application and made an order for security for costs in the sum of £50,000. 

Immigration – Detention. The applicant, having served a sentence of imprisonment, had been placed in immigration detention. Efforts were made to determine where he was from. Eventually, a deportation order was made while enquiries continued. The applicant was considered to present a high risk of absconding and a sufficient risk of harm and reoffending if released. On his release on bail he issued judicial review proceedings contending that he had been unlawfully detained when there had been no prospect of his removal within a reasonable period. The Administrative Court dismissed his claim as being unfounded. He had been detained for the purposes of deportation and, having regard to his history and criminal record, he had not been detained for more than a reasonable period. Any error in dealing with his case had not crossed the borderline from administrative failing into illegality. 

Arbitration – Arbitrator. The Privy Council dismissed the appellant housing trust's appeal against the findings of an arbitrator in a dispute concerning land development in Jamaica. The Privy Council decided that there was no sufficient basis for the Board to disturb the arbitrator's award. 

Employment – Discrimination. The appellant, B, brought a claim for race discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal in the employment tribunal (the tribunal). The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal, but allowed the other claims. B appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT). The EAT held that the tribunal had misdirected itself on the law, and held that there had been no victimisation. B appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the EAT, having identified the error of law, should have remitted the matter to the tribunal. 

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. 

Judgment – Default of defence. The parties had issued cross-petitions to grant relief against unfairly prejudicial conduct of a company's affairs. During the proceedings, various interim orders were made, the effect of which was, ultimately, that judgment was entered against HRH Prince Abdulaziz Bin Mishal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (the Prince) in respect of a counterclaim, and his application to stay the judgment pending the trial of the petitions was refused. The Prince appealed against all of the interim orders made. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing his appeals, held, among other things, that the Prince could not rely on a protocol in Saudi Arabia that members of the royal family were prevented from signing court documents to avoid compliance with an order that he provide a signed witness statement. 

Sexual offences – Sexual offences prevention order. The district judge refused to discharge a sexual offences prevention order made against the appellant, following his conviction for serious sexual offences in Romania and a 15 year old boy staying at his flat. The appellant appealed by way of case stated. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been right to say that the appellant could not seek to adduce evidence in an attempt to undermine the decisions to make the order and dismissing his appeal against that decision. Since that had been the purpose of the boy's evidence, the judge had been entitled to say that it had not been relevant. 

Marriage – Foreign marriage. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed a wife's appeal against a declaration that her marriage by way of Nikah in Pakistan had been valid. On the new evidence presented, the decree absolute that had purported to end her previous marriage had been void as issued less than six weeks after the decree nisi. In any event, the amended date of decree absolute meant that the marriage had not been dissolved for the three month period required by Sharia law before a woman could re-marry. The matter would be remitted to consider whether the fact that her previous marriage had been a nullity due to the husband's bigamy had any impact upon the validity of the parties' marriage. 

Damages – Entitlement to damages. The claimants were the tenants of a restaurant. A fire occurred at the restaurant, which was caused by contractors working for the landlord, P. The claimants commenced proceedings against P, seeking a range of remedies including the award of exemplary damages. The Chancery Division held that the claimants were entitled to be placed in the position that they would have been in had the fire not occurred, namely in occupation of restaurant premises with a working kitchen. Exemplary damages were not awarded. 

Shipping – Arbitration clause. The parties contracted to transport rice under bills of lading that contained a number of different arbitration clauses. The claimant sought security from the defendant, which sent a letter of understanding setting out an arbitration procedure. A dispute arose as to alleged damage to the rice. The defendant submitted that the letter was not to be relied upon in determining how the arbitration should be carried out. The Commercial Court held that the claimant had validly commenced arbitration and the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to determine all the claims made by the claimant under the bills of lading.