Latest Cases

Criminal law – Threatening or abusive behaviour – Availability of defence of self-defence – Burden of proof. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal against conviction, the court held that a sheriff did not misdirect the jury when he told them that the special defence of self-defence had no relevance to a charge of behaving in a threatening or abusive manner under s 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010; s 38(2) did not impose a legal burden on an accused as opposed to an evidential one and the sheriff did misdirect the jury on that matter; however, as the appellant's behaviour could not, on any view, be characterised as having been reasonable, notwithstanding the misdirection there had been no miscarriage of justice. 

Income tax – Repayment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the taxpayer's appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to strike out her appeal against the rejection of her claim for repayment of overpaid income tax. The tribunal decided that s 118(2) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 applied to such a late claim making it a claim within Sch 1AB to that Act with the result that the enquiry, closure notice and appeal provisions of Sch 1A to the Act would apply. 

University – Student. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Office of the Independent Adjudicator's decision that his complaint about the termination of his registration as a medical student was not justified. It was not shown that the defendant's approach had been irrational. 

Judgment – Variation or revocation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, gave a supplemental judgment to correct an error in its previous judgment, which stated that interest should be payable after judgment at the rate prescribed by the County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991, SI 1991/1184 (see [2015] All ER (D) 79 (Aug)). Since no order had been perfected, it was not too late to correct the error, as it was common ground that post-judgment interest was not payable because the requisite notices had not been given. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal, holding that the deportation order made in respect of the respondent, under s 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007, had to stand. Neither the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) nor the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had given to the public interest in the deportation of the respondent 'the great weight' that had been required. 

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed an appeal against sentence, brought pursuant to s 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998. The sentences had not been unduly lenient, and the judge had been entitled to have proceeded with the sentencing procedure from a starting point of 10 years, rather than to have commenced from the 12-year starting point as prescribed by the Sentencing Guidelines Council's Definitive Guidelines. 

Immigration – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, among other things, that, given the terms of ss 13(1), 13(8)(c) and 11(4)(b) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, a 'decision' of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) to grant permission to appeal constituted an 'excluded decision'. Once an 'excluded decision' had been made by the UT, then the UT had no power to 'review' it, by virtue of the terms of s 10(1) of the Act. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against an order for possession of a hotel and for payment of the claimant's costs of the proceedings. In the circumstances, the judge had not been justified in making those orders on the basis of the evidence that had been before him. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's judicial review proceedings on the basis that they had become academic. He had obtained self-contained accommodation, and issues such as contact with his son and his application for asylum, were not matters with which the court was seized. 

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court held that three forms of bra infringed the claimant company's patent, and that the sale of such bras by the defendant clothing company had infringed a settlement agreement between the parties.