Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings in which the petitioner, who was granted discretionary leave to remain in the UK for three years only challenged that decision and sought declarator that he was entitled to indefinite leave to remain, the court rejected the petitioner's central claim that he had a legitimate expectation, based on Parliamentary and other statements, that his application to remain in the UK would be decided by July 2011 as part of the 'legacy' programme and would be dealt with in accordance with the law and practice then in force. 

Landlord and tenant – Service charge. The Chancery Division held that a landlord was not entitled to charge the claimant tenant service charges which represented costs for refurbishment works, which it had incurred after the claimant had terminated the lease by operating a break clause. That was so, notwithstanding that the relevant works had been carried out within the original contractual period of the lease. 

Immigration – Asylum – Fresh claim. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a failed Iraqi asylum seeker challenging a decision refusing to treat his further submissions as a fresh claim, the court, inter alia, rejected contentions that the decision-maker had taken an irrelevant matter into account, had failed to consider that another immigration judge might depart from country guidance, had provided no proper analysis of the new material, and had failed to apply anxious scrutiny. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant was pregnant, a drug addict and HIV positive. She appealed against the district judge's order for her extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of 14 months' imprisonment for three offences of theft. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that a number of factors, coupled with the pregnancy of which the judge had been unaware, meant that the case fell into the category where the interference with rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was exceptionally serious so as to justify the refusal to extradite, as it would be disproportionate in the present case. 

Company – Compulsory winding up. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners issued without notice applications for the appointment of provisional liquidators in relation to the affairs of two companies. The Chancery Division, having set out the principles upon which to proceed in dealing with without notice applications for the appointment of provisional liquidators, granted the applications. It held that, in the circumstances, there was no real alternative but to appoint provisional liquidators. 

Declaration – Jurisdiction. The claimant trust was authorised to bring claims on behalf of a large number of individuals in the United States who had allegedly suffered injury as a result of exposure to asbestos and asbestos related products, which had been supplied and/or distributed by the first defendant (T&N), an English company and its subsidiaries. The trust applied to the Commercial Court for declarations concerning the obligations of the reinsurers relating to the handling and settlement of any asbestos claims that the trust wished to advance against T&N. The Commercial Court held that the trust, as a third party and non-party to the relevant insurance contract, had no standing to claim such declaratory relief. 

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. Concerns were raised as to the competence of the claimant surgeon, and he was referred to a disciplinary panel. He applied for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant NHS trust from referring his case to a capability hearing panel. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that, among other things, on the true construction of the relevant standards procedure, an employer could proceed to a capability hearing even if it had not received advice that a practitioner's performance was so fundamentally flawed that no action plan had a realistic chance of success. 

Immigration – Detention. The defendant Secretary of State detained the claimant Dutch national on the basis that he was subject to non-automatic deportation due to his criminal offence. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no breach of a duty to make inquiries as to the claimant's mental health and there was wholly insufficient evidence to establish that he had had a serious mental illness that could not be adequately managed in detention. Further, there had been additional features justifying detention in the claimant's case, including the risk of his committing further offences and the risk of his absconding. 

Income tax – Additional assessment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the taxpayer director's appeal against six assessments issued against him pursuant to s 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 for the years 2003/04 to 2008/09. The tribunal decided that, contrary to the argument put forward by the taxpayer, there had been a discovery by the relevant officer for the purposes of s 29 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal in regard to all six years was allowed to proceed to a substantive hearing. 

Solicitor – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant in-house solicitor for a newspaper appealed against the finding of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal (the SDT) that he was guilty of failing to act with integrity and knowingly allowing the judge to be misled in the conduct of litigation. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal in part, held that the judge had been misled. The SDT, having disavowed making any finding of dishonesty, could not properly proceed to make a finding that the appellant had knowingly allowed the judge to be misled. However, it was inevitable that the SDT would have found him guilty on the basis that he had recklessly allowed the judge to be misled.