Latest Cases

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the Secretary of State's appeal in a deportation case, held that, although the tribunals below had been wrong to conclude that the respondent Italian national had acquired a right of permanent residence in the United Kingdom, under reg 15 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1003, the error had not been material to the outcome and there was, therefore, no basis upon which to set aside the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). 

Negligence – Duty of care. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant patient succeeded in his claim in negligence against the defendant NHS Trust who had employed the surgeon who had performed an operation on him. The court decided that defendant had not established that, absent incontinence, the claimant would have had a colostomy. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against an order as to costs made against the appellant in circumstances where he had beaten the offer to settle for '£18,500 net of [Compensation Recovery Unit]' that had been made to him by the respondent pursuant to CPR Pt 36. The offer had been a valid one under Pt 36, the recorder had been entitled to wait to assess costs until after the Compensation Recovery Unit had reviewed the appellant's certificate of recoverable benefits and, on the facts, the recorder had erred in concluding that the appellant had not beaten the offer. 

Medical negligence – Childbirth – Application to amend. Court of Session: In an action for damages in respect of hypoxic brain injury suffered at birth in which it was alleged that the oxygen supply to the pursuer's brain in utero was impaired because her mother's womb ruptured because her labour was negligently mismanaged, and in which, following proof, the pursuer enrolled a motion seeking to allow a minute of amendment proposing a new risk disclosure case to be received, the court refused the pursuer's motion, holding that an adequate explanation had not been offered for bringing the risk disclosure case so late, and it was not reasonable, equitable and in the interests of justice to allow the new case to be added. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division refused to exercise its discretion in relation to an application by the husband to set aside an order for payment of child maintenance based on the service provisions in that order. Over two years had elapsed before the husband had taken the point on service, although he had taken many other meritless points about the validity of the order all of which had been dismissed. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court granted the claimant's application for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's award in its favour for works it had carried out works, under a construction contract, for the defendant. When considering whether to enforce adjudicators' decisions, a distinction had to be drawn between jurisdictional challenges to enforcement and challenges alleging substantive error. The adjudicator in the present case had had jurisdiction because, however, the contractual arrangements between the parties were correctly to be described, they mandated the use of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 and the adjudicator had been properly appointed by the scheme's procedure. 

Immigration – European Economic Area nationals. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a finding of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (FTT) that the appellant Brazilian national had entered into a marriage of convenience with a Portuguese national in order to re-enter and remain in the United Kingdom. While the legal burden of proof lay on the Secretary of State throughout, the evidential burden could shift. The errors in law made by the FTT had not been material to the outcome. 

Compensation – Criminal injuries. The Court of Protection held, in what was agreed to be a matter of general importance, that a deputy or an attorney acting on behalf of an applicant in regard to an award under the Criminal Injury Compensation Authority could accept and finalise a such an award on behalf of a patient. Section 20(3)(a) and further or alternatively s 20(3)(c) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 did not preclude a deputy from so doing. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed the claimant Indian national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision refusing her leave to remain in the United Kingdom. She had not had a 'parental relationship' with her grandchildren, despite the very close familial relationship between them and the Secretary of State had properly considered the grandchildren's best interest. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 6(2) to (4) of Council Directive (EEC) 92/43/. The reference had been made in proceedings between Grüne Liga Sachsen eVand Others, on the one hand, and the Free State of Saxony, on the other, regarding a decision taken by the authorities of the latter approving the construction of a bridge over the Elbe in Dresden (Germany).