Latest Cases

War – Prisoners of war. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's policy, authorising 'challenge direct' for use in the interrogation of persons captured by United Kingdom forces in situations of armed conflict. The Divisional Court dismissed the application and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the conduct authorised by the policy did not constitute inhumane treatment, coercion, threatening or insulting conduct, or unpleasant or disadvantageous behaviour. Further, there was nothing inherent in the policy which gave rise to an unacceptable risk of unlawful conduct. In any event, the claimant lacked standing to bring the proceedings. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks & Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Arisa Assurances SA and Argo Group International Holdings Ltd (Argo) relating to the application by Argo's predecessor for registration of a figurative sign 'ARIS' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 562/2006, as amended, (establishing a community code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders) and European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 810/2009 (establishing a community code on visas). The request had been made in the course of a dispute between Air Baltic and Valsts robežsardze concerning the imposition of a fine on Air Baltic for the administrative offence of transporting a person to Latvia without necessary travel documents. 

Immigration – Asylum – Victim of trafficking. Court of Session: In judicial review proceedings by a Nigerian asylum seeker who claimed to be a victim of trafficking and forced prostitution, seeking reduction of decisions to certify her asylum claim as one appropriately requiring removal to Italy and to issue removal directions, the court held that, on the basis that the transfer provisions of Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003 ('Dublin II') were engaged the Secretary of State had failed to exercise the residual discretion available under art 3(2) of Dublin II by considering the risk that the petitioner's rights under art 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be breached on return to Italy by exposure once again to forced prostitution. 

Legal aid – Expert evidence. In private law children proceedings, the district judge had ordered the instruction of a psychotherapist and subsequently ordered that the parties jointly instruct the psychotherapist with the claimant child, who was publicly funded, to bear the costs (the order). The Legal Services Commission refused to pay for the report and the judge, on the claimant's judicial review application, upheld that decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the claimant's appeal, held that the order had been made at the instigation of the children's guardian on the claimant's behalf and it had not fallen foul of s 22(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. 

Company – Receiver. In earlier London arbitration proceedings, the claimant had been awarded around US$300m against the defendant foreign companies. The Commercial Court granted the claimant's application to appoint receivers by way of equitable execution over certain assets of the defendants where, on the facts, it was just and convenient to do so, in the exercise of the court's discretion. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Lidl Siftung & Co. KG (Lidl) for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market concerning opposition proceedings between A Colmeia do Minho Ldª and Lidl regarding the application by Lidl for registration of a figurative sign depicting the word 'FAIRGLOBE' as a Community trade mark. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant immigration detention charity issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the lawfulness of the defendant Secretary of State's policy and practice in the operation of the detained fast track (DFT) for the detention of some asylum seekers while their asylum claims were determined. The Administrative Court held that the various shortcomings in the DFT process required the early instruction of lawyers absent from the process. That was sufficiently significant that the DFT carried too high a risk of unfair determinations for those who might be vulnerable applicants. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, to allow the respondent's appeal against the rejection of his application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's refusal to reinstate his indefinite leave to remain (ILR) which had been revoked following the issue of a deportation order pursuant to s 3(5) of the Immigration Act 1971. The Supreme Court decided that on the correct construction of s 5(2) of that Act, the respondent remained liable to deportation, even though it could not at present be carried out: although his position in the United Kingdom had to be regularised, that did not entail recognition of ILR. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court allowed the appellant judicial authority's appeal against the judge's discharge of the respondent's extradition to Spain to face trial for playing a leading role in a conspiracy to smuggle 800kg of cannabis to the United Kingdom, as the judge's conclusion on proportionality could not stand. However, it dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal, as he had produced no evidence at all of reasonable grounds to believe that the sole reason for the failure to charge or to try him had been his absence from Spain.