Latest Cases

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. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal, in considering claims made at different times by different employees, against the background of the employer having received multiple grievances which it had investigated, had allowed certain applications by employees to amend but disallowed others. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal's refusal of amendments to add new factual allegations could not properly be described as erroneous in law or perverse. However, the tribunal had erred in misclassifying some of the proposed amendments as new claims and had erred in its approach to proposed amendments to add claims whose facts had post-dated the original claim. Accordingly, the employees' appeal would be allowed. 

Riot – Damage. In the course of the 2011 London Riots, a gang of youths broke into a warehouse, looted it and burned it down with petrol bombs. The judge held that the gang were 'persons riotously and tumultuously assembled' so that the defendant Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime was liable to compensate anyone who had sustained losses, but that the defendant's liability did not extend to consequential loss. The parties appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the judge had been correct in his findings on liability. However, s 2(1) of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 included a right to compensation for consequential loss. 

Company – Administration. The defendant appealed against the judge's order that the claimant administrators be permitted to sell the assets of a company, which were subject to a fixed charge security held by the defendant, as if they were not subject to that security. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that judge had approached the matter correctly, had properly taken into account the matters to which he had been bound to have regard and had come to a conclusion which had fallen well within the bounds of a reasonable exercise of his discretion. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to the Czech Republic on the basis that it would be an abuse of process. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the extradition process had not been abused. There was nothing to suggest that the injustice to the appellant of having been tried, convicted and sentenced in his absence on the erroneous premise that he had been a fugitive from justice had been the result of anything other than incompetence on the part of the Czech authorities. There was no material which suggested that they had been motivated by bad faith. 

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the provisions of the Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388, as amended by Council Directive (EC) 95/7. The request arose during proceedings between the applicant in the main proceedings and the French Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance, concerning the refusal to refund to the applicant the value added tax which it had paid in France for work which had been carried out in France. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant obtained information in relation to the claimant Tata (a multi-national IT consultancy company). Tata was very anxious that the defendant had seemingly managed to obtain access to confidential information and applied for interim injunctive relief requiring the delivery up of certain property belonging to Tata and the deletion of any soft copies of that property and prohibiting the defendant from communicating or disclosing to any person Tata's proprietary and confidential information as well as from inducing or procuring any third party to provide him with Tata's proprietary and confidential information. The Queen's Bench Division allowed both aspects of the interim relief. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The defendants were sentenced for offences which included threatening and injuring numerous people for the purpose of enforcing debts of a known drug-dealer. The first defendant was sentenced to a total sentence of 17 years' imprisonment for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and for firearm offences. The second defendant was sentenced to a total of three years and eight months' imprisonment for two counts of affray. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowing the appeal of the first defendant, held that the total sentence was manifestly excessive and that a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment overall was appropriate. On the facts, there was nothing excessive or wrong in principle in the sentence imposed on the second defendant and his appeal was dismissed. 

European Union – Transport. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that arts 2, 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) 295/91) had to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of 'arrival time', which was used to determine the length of the delay to which passengers on a flight had been subject, referred to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft was opened, the assumption being that, at that moment, the passengers were permitted to leave the aircraft. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The European Commission had adopted Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 (the contested decision), having found that certain undertakings, including Reagens SpA, had infringed art 81 EC and art 53 of the European Economic Area by participating in two groups of anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices covering the territory of the EEA and concerning, on the one hand, the tin heat stabiliser sector and, on the other, the epoxidised soybean oil and esters sector. In the present proceedings, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Reagens SpA for annulment of the contested decision or, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on that company.