Latest Cases

Immigration – Removal. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to certify his removal from the United Kingdom under reg 24AA of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1003. In one of the first cases to deal with regs 24AA and 29AA of the Regulations, the tribunal sought to deal with their proper scope in depth. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the employment tribunal's explicit conclusion, that the average shorter length of service of Muslim chaplains had not been the result of any discriminatory practice on the part of the prison service, meant that they had not been put at a particular disadvantage within the meaning of s 19(2)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 and, accordingly, the claim of indirect discrimination had to fail. 

Insurance – Scheme of arrangement. The Companies Court sanctioned an insurance business transfer scheme, under s 111(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, relating to the general United Kingdom insurance business conducted by two subsidiaries of the Group Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc and, in respect of certain previously transferred business, by Aviva Insurance Ltd. 

Town and country planning – Trees. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that there was no merit in any of the points raised by way of challenge to the decision letter of the inspector appointed by the first respondent Secretary of State, in which he dismissed the appellant's appeal against a tree replacement notice. There was no force in the appellant's criticisms of the wording of the inspector's decision letter and, insofar as the second respondent local planning authority and then the inspector had relied upon the inclusion of 'seedlings/saplings' when arriving at an estimate of the number of trees on site before the clearance, they had not erred in law. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed a mother's appeal against the refusal of her application, made in the course of private law proceedings, for contact with her child in Florida. Subject to appropriate safeguards, the mother would be permitted to take the child to Florida for staying contact. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division in a case management hearing heard issues on the legal principles to be applied to s 8 of the Security and Justice Act 2013 (the disclosure stage). It decided that the application of the common law and the application of art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights reached precisely the same destination, namely, where material could not revealed in full it should be summarised as fully as possible consistent with the statute. 

Sentence – Suspended sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, quashed the minimum term of nine years and three months imposed on the defendant, and substituted it for a sentence of eight years and nine months' imprisonment. The judge had not had the power to 'increase' the minimum term because the offence for which the defendant had received a suspended sentence had not been a 'specified serious offence'. 

Company – Liquidation. The Chancery Division ruled on an application by liquidators of Premier Motor Auctions Leeds Ltd and another company for orders that litigation expenses of proceedings brought by the companies be approved and authorised by the court, pursuant to r 4.218E of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925 and for orders that the application be heard in private and not be served on a creditor of the companies (Lloyds) until after the final determination of the proceedings. The court held that the circumstances of the case were not sufficiently exceptional to justify derogation from the open justice principle. A question of construction was raised as to whether the condition specified in r 4.218B(1)(c) was satisfied and whether it could be said that the liquidators would have to have recourse to property comprised in or subject to Lloyds' floating charge in order to pay litigation expenses. However, it was not appropriate to deal with the application in the absence of Lloyds and the application and the evidence were ordered to first be served on Lloyds. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing an appeal against a deportation decision, held that First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) had taken into account all the relevant considerations under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The FTT had not made any express reference to Üner v The Netherlands ([2006] 3 FCR 340) or Maslov v Austria ([2008] ECHR 1638/03), but it had not needed to since: (i) it had had regard to all the relevant considerations; and (ii) the appellant had not been lawfully present in the United Kingdom. 

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that in the circumstances, a custodial sentence which did not include a finding of dangerousness, under s 227 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, was unduly lenient. An extended sentence as imposed.