Latest Cases

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Libyan national's application for judicial review of his immigration detention for 21 months. There had, at all times, been a substantial risk that the claimant would abscond and that he would re-offend if released, and there had been a sufficient prospect of removal to warrant the claimant's continued detention. 

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that EU law precluded national legislation which made bringing an action for damages in respect of the infringement of a rule of public procurement law subject to a prior finding that the public procurement procedure for the contract in question was unlawful because of the lack of prior publication of a contract notice, where the action for a declaration of unlawfulness was subject to a six-month limitation period which started to run on the day after the date of the award of the public contract in question, irrespective of whether or not the applicant in that action had been in a position to know of the unlawfulness affecting the decision of the awarding authority. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appellant local authority's appeal by way of case stated, held that the correct approach to the statutory test on an appeal against a decision to change street names was whether, according the local authority appropriate respect for its reasoning and conclusions, that decision could properly be said to be wrong. In the circumstances, the judge not been entitled to make the decision he had. 

Arbitration – Award. The Commercial Court allowed the charterers' appeal in an arbitration concerning delay the failure of a vessel to meet certain speed and performance warranties. It held that, among other things, the arbitrator had made an error of law when considering the meaning of 'good weather' in the case and had failed to properly consider part of the vessel's journey. The case was remitted to the arbitrator. 

Account – Indebtedness. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against an order giving judgment for the claimant in the sum of £1,215,000. The judge had not fallen into error in holding that transactions between the parties in the course of a trading relationship had not been recorded in a running account, and he had not erred in the way he had approached the burden of proof and in having reached the conclusion to which he had come on that issue. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court, in transferring the claimant's challenge to his immigration detention to the county court, was not prepared to assume that a decision to detain him made after an unlawful decision to refuse to accept a submission as a fresh claim was, itself, rendered unlawful, giving rise to a claim in damages. Accordingly, the issue was best dealt with by way of a private law claim for damages. 

Contract – Termination. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant company's claim in respect of the cancellation of a contract and the failure to deliver certain bonds. It held that, among other things, owing to a disclaimer on a trade ticket used by the second defendant company, the second defendant had been entitled to cancel the contract. 

Criminal law – Information. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal by way of case stated against the dismissal of five informations relating to the respondent's sale of a motor vehicle on the basis that the justices could not be sure that he had been a 'trader'. The justices had never addressed the respondent's previous sale of some 19 cars and whether there had been a degree of regularity which had made the respondent a trader. 

Value added tax – Exemptions. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) ruled on the appeal by DPAS Ltd against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that DPAS did not make supplies of services within the exemption for transactions concerning payments or transfers to patients of dentists for whom DPAS provided practice-branded dental plans. The tribunal decided, among other things, that there was an agreement between DPAS and the existing patients who had signed and returned the relevant acceptance forms under which DPAS provided services to the patients in return for consideration. However, the issue as to whether such supplies were exempt would be reserved unil after the Court of Justice of the European Union had given its judgment in two similar cases. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following the giving of the main judgment in the case (see [2015] All ER (D) 117 (Nov)), the Chancery Division considered that it was inappropriate for the court to give an indication that it would have been willing to order an increase in the defendant's budget had such an application been made. An interim payment on account of costs would be directed of about 80% of 70% of the defendant's approved budget.