Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant, from Pakistan, obtained entry clearance as Tier 4 (General) student until May 2012 to undertake a course, which was subject to the condition, pursuant to s 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1977, prohibiting him from studying at an institution other than the sponsor body. The claimant left the sponsor body and completed his education at another institution. He was subsequently accepted onto a further study course at another institution, to commence July 2012, and applied for further leave to remain. The defendant Secretary of State refused his application and the claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the condition was valid and the claimant was plainly in breach of it. Further, the Secretary of State had not acted unfairly in refusing the application. 

Costs – Order for costs. The claimants entered into a conditional fee agreement with their solicitors, who in turn entered into a CFA with counsel. When the first CFAs were superseded by later CFAs, the claimants' solicitors failed to notify the defendants in accordance with the CPR. After judgment was given in the claimants' favour, the defendants contended that the claimants were not entitled to recover any success fee. The Chancery Division, held that, applying established principles, the master had not erred in granting the claimants relief from sanctions in respect of their failure to comply with the then CPR 44.15(2). 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant's extradition to Spain was sought to face trial for terrorism-related offences allegedly occurring in 1991. The judge ordered his extradition and the appellant appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the domestic courts should be extremely reluctant to engage in evaluating the competing arguments about the local law of limitation in the requesting state and the judge had adequately considered the issue. Further, whatever the history might have been, the appellant would not be subject to torture on his return to Spain and would receive a trial that met the requirements of art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal refused the employer's application to strike out the employee's complaint of unfair dismissal and permitted the employee to amend his claim to include a complaint of unfair dismissal, based on constructive dismissal as opposed to actual dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, held, inter alia, that the tribunal had erred in mischaracterising the proposed amendment as a re-labelling exercise when it had been a new cause of action based on facts originally pleaded, raised out of time and at the last minute. Accordingly, permission to amend the claim would be refused and the claim, as originally formulated, would be struck out on the basis that the tribunal had had no jurisdiction to entertain it. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The respondent mother, SU, had a child, Z, with her partner, DE. The applicant local authority had removed SU's seven previous children in care proceedings. Following Z's birth, she was placed under an interim care order, but rehabilitation proceedings were later commenced. The authority then directed that rehabilitation stop, despite nothing untoward having occurred, and sought a care order and a placement order. The Family Court, in dismissing the application, held that adoption would be entirely inappropriate and that Z should return to live with her parents. 

Contract – Property. The defendant introduced a scheme to encourage small-scale low carbon generation installations. It amended the scheme by a proposal. Judicial review proceedings concluded that the proposal was unlawful. The claimants brought a claim maintaining that the damage was done to them by the simple making of the proposal. They sought damages against the defendant pursuant to art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (A1P1) on the basis that the proposal was an unjustified interference with their peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The Queen's Bench determined certain preliminary issues and decided that, as a matter of general principle, the claimants would be able to recover damages for the wrongful interference with their possessions. 

Insurance – Broker. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's claim for breach of contract and/or negligence against the defendant insurance brokers in circumstances where the claimant's business was found to be grossly under-insured following a fire. 

Prison – Prison conditions. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Parole Board's decision not to recommend his move to an open prison. Despite the fact that facilities necessary for enabling the claimant to carry out the required additional work had not been provided, there had not been any irrationality or other error of law in the Parole Board's decision. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Rod Leichtmetallrader GmbH (Rod) against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to invalidity proceedings between Rodi TR, SL, and Rod concerning the successful registration by the latter of a figurative mark in black and white depicting the word 'ROD' as a Community trade mark. 

Criminal evidence – Evidence of bad character. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the judge's refusal to adduce evidence of the complainant's previous convictions, pursuant to s 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, had not rendered unsafe the defendant's conviction for wounding with intent, contrary to s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The previous convictions did not have substantial probative value in relation to the real issue in the case.