Latest Cases

Immigration – Removal. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) refused the claimant permission to seek judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to remove him from the United Kingdom on the ground of deception. It held that the claimant had not established the fundamental prerequisite to a substantive legitimate expectation, namely, a clear and unambiguous promise, or representation, devoid of any ambiguity, conveyed directly or indirectly to him. Further, his case was defeated by the application of the alternative remedy principle. 

Pension – Pensions Regulator. The Administrative Court held that, in determining whether seafarers employed by the claimant fell within the territorial scope of the Pensions Act 2008, as the defendant Pensions Regulator maintained, so as to qualify for automatic enrolment into a pensions scheme, the test had to be whether the individual was working in Great Britain in the sense of working with their base in Great Britain, rather than doing work here on a temporary basis. 

European Union – Enforcement of judgment. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's application for a declaration that the defendant, who had succeeded in proceedings in France, was not entitled to have that judgment recognised or enforced in the English courts. The allegations concerned did not give rise to an infringement of the claimant's rights at variance to an unacceptable degree with the legal order of England and Wales. 

Bank – Bank loan. The Queen's Division allowed the claimant banks claim in respect of £120,000 pursuant to a loan. It rejected the defendant's contention that the claimant had induced a breach of contract and that he court rely on s 1(1)(b) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Party) Act 1999. 

Extradition – Discharge. The Divisional Court dismissed the United States of America's appeal against the discharge of the respondent from extradition to face trial for 19 charges of sexual assault allegedly committed against an adolescent boy. The requesting state's assurance was insufficient to obviate the risk of a flagrant breach of the respondent's rights under art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the danger of being subjected to a civil commitment order. 

Lease – Consumer credit. The Chancery Division granted the defendant property developer's application for summary judgment on a claim under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which contended that the transfer fee provisions in leases amounted to the provision of credit and that the leases were unenforceable consumer credit agreements. On the true construction of a lease, the defendant had not provided credit to the claimants in the transfer fee provisions of the lease and the claimants had had no real prospect of succeeding on its claim. 

National Health Service – General medical services. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant's decision not to conclude any form of interim contract with the claimant concerning the provision of gamma knife treatment for NHS patients at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery pending the completion of its national procurement exercise. The defendant's reasons for having rejected the claimant's proposal had afforded a sustainable basis for not having provided an interim contract with the claimant. 

Employment – Continuity. The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled, in allowing the defendants' appeal, that, although reg 3(1)(a) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246 (TUPE), did not preclude a relevant transfer to multiple transferees, where the transferor remained liable for the claimant's employment, the situation would not fall within the protection of TUPE or Council Directive (EC) 2001/23. Accordingly, the employment tribunal's decision was substituted by a finding that there had been no relevant transfer for TUPE purposes. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal concerning whether the judge had been wrong to have held that the claimant should not suffer the normal consequences of not having accepted a CPR Pt 36 offer. The judge had concluded that the normal consequences would be unjust and that conclusion had been based on relevant considerations. 

Immigration – Refugee. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Syrian national's procedural judicial review challenge to the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse to provide him a travel document for reasons of national security. Although the pending closed material procedure had inherent limitations, it had been considered consistent with the requirements of fairness, art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and/or art 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union for other purposes, and the claimant was not entitled to more.