Latest Cases

Immigration – Detention. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant Home Office's appeal, upheld the judge's finding that the claimant minor had been unlawfully detained in immigration detention. In particular, the material available to the defendant had not been sufficient to meet the Age Assessment guidance and, therefore, the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance or to enable the defendant to carry out its independent duty to satisfy itself that the assessment had been Merton-compliant. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Dyson Ltd against the European Commission for annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013, supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners. 

Company – Winding up. The Companies Court allowed the applicant company's application to restrain the presentation of a winding-up petition made against it. In the circumstances, the inquiries of fact and context required would be far better dealt with by ordinary process. A petition for winding up was not a suitable or even proper way to proceed. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection authorised the use of necessary physical restraint as would enable the investigations in a medical hospital to be carried out on the patient who was being detained under s 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that cl 4.2 of the Framework Agreement and art 7 of Directive (EC) 2003/88 should be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an increase in the number of hours of work performed by a worker, the member states were not obliged to provide that the entitlement to paid annual leave already accrued, and possibly taken, had to be recalculated retroactively according to that worker's new work pattern. A new calculation should, however, be performed for the period during which working time increased. 

Companies – Shareholders – Unfair prejudice. Court of Session: In an application under s 996 the Companies Act 2006 in which minority shareholders sought an order for the purchase of their shares, alleging that the company's affairs had been conducted in manner unfairly prejudicial to their interests, the court held that the company could not properly be characterised as a quasi‑partnership, that conduct unfairly prejudicial to the petitioners' interests had been proved in some respects, although not in others, and that it was fair and reasonable to make an order for the purchase of the petitioners' shares at the lower of 75% of fair value and the subscription or par value paid for them. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. Court of Session: Granting a judicial review petition by an Indian citizen who challenged the refusal of his application for leave to remain in the UK as the spouse of British citizen, the court held that the respondent had failed to attach enough importance to the rights of the petitioner's spouse and had not properly considered the close relationship the spouse had to have with her disabled mother, and that on any reasonable view it could not be said that the case would be bound to fail before an immigration judge. 

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court considered the claimant company's applications for freezing injunctions to prevent both of the defendant companies from selling a full label generic pregabalin product, thereby infringing the claimant's patent. The court held that, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to grant both injunctions. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the application for judicial review made by one of the 'Cuban Five' against the refusal of entry clearance to meet with United Kingdom parliamentarians (the MPs) to discuss his case. The refusal of entry clearance was a disproportionate interference with the MP's rights under art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which had not been sufficiently justified by the Secretary of State. 

Parent and child – Adoption. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by the natural father of a child against a sheriff's decision to grant a local authority's application for a permanence order with authority to adopt, the court rejected grounds of appeal contending that before making a permanence order the sheriff had failed to have regard to the appellant's capacity to look after the child; that he was not entitled to conclude on the facts of case that no order less than adoption would suffice, or that adoption was necessary rather than merely desirable or reasonable; and that he had failed to have regard to his duty to respect the family life of the appellant and the child.