Latest Cases

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. 

Local authority – Residential care home. A dispute arose as to which of three brothers should be appointed as the deputies for their elderly father, DG, who suffered from Alzheimer's disease and lived in a care home. It was held that the application of two brothers who lived near their father would be preferred over that of the third brother, who lived further away and had not had as productive a relationship with those caring for DG. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The parties were both companies which, among other things, provided vehicle rental services. The proceedings concerned alleged infringement by the defendants of the claimant's trade mark. In the course of proceedings, the claimant made an application seeking to adduce survey evidence. The Chancery Division held that it was appropriate for the survey evidence to be adduced. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) assessed the claimant asylum seeker as a minor, but the High Court in distinct judicial review proceedings found that he was not a minor. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) found error in the FTT's decisions and placed considerable weight on the High Court's decision in finding the claimant an adult. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the UT had not been bound by the High Court's decision, but had been entitled to attach considerable weight to it. However, the UT had not regarded itself as bound by the High Court's decision and had not fundamentally erred. 

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the action brought by Moallem Insurance Co for: (i) annulment of the European Council which had listed the applicant in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP); (ii) annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 (implementing Regulation (EU) 267/2012 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) 961/2010) in so far as it had listed the applicant in Annex IX to Regulation 267/2012; and (iii) a declaration that art 12 of Decision 2010/413 and art 35 of Regulation 267/2012 were inapplicable to it. 

Contempt of court – Committal. N's son was put into foster care and orders were made by the court compelling N to take down the son's Facebook page and forbidding him from harassing social workers concerned with the case. N made posts on the Facebook page and sent messages to social workers. The Family Division held that N was clearly in contempt of court and granted the local authority's application for his committal to prison. 

Trade union – Recognition. The claimant (Boots) sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) that the application of the Pharmacists' Defence Association Union (the PDAU) to be recognised by the Boots for the purposes of collective bargaining on behalf of the pharmacists employed by Boots was admissible. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that, on the proper interpretation of 'collective bargaining' in para 134(1) of Sch A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the PDAU's application to the CAC had been rendered inadmissible by para 35 of Sch A1 to the Act. 

National Health Service – Health authority. The claimant issued proceedings for judicial review, seeking a ruling that the defendant clinical commissioning group (the CCG) had an obligation, under s 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006, to provide her with accommodation as part of the health care package with which it should provider her free of charge under the NHS. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, given pending Court of Protection proceedings to determine the claimant's capacity, it was too early to say that the CCG was bound in law to find that the claimant had a reasonable requirement of accommodation which needed to be met out of NHS resources. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. There were proceedings concerning a family of Turkish/Cypriot origin that had been broken apart as a result of allegations of extreme violence perpetrated by the father. In a fact finding hearing the Family Division held that the mother and daughters' allegations had been made out and the case had been proved on the balance of probabilities. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. The claimant was awarded £6,500 in general damages. She suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder which resolved 11 months post-accident and a phobia of driving which resolved one year post-accident. The claimant also suffered an injury to her hip which resolved four months post-accident, and a small scar on her eyebrow which was permanent but which was not particularly noticeable.