Latest Cases

Local government – Council tax. The Administrative Court held that the defendant local authority's decision, replacing the 100% reduction in council tax for those eligible for support because of their lack of resources with an 85% reduction, had not been discriminatory. However, there had been a failure by the authority to have due regard to the public sector equality duty. 

Immigration – Appeal. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) gave guidance on appeals against tribunal costs orders made in immigration judicial review proceedings. It then struck out the claimants' applications for permission to appeal, as no valid application had been made due to the egregious contravention of r 44(7)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, SI 2008/2698. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant Afghani national's application for judicial review, held that he had not been unlawfully detained in immigration detention. The local authority's age assessment was sufficient for immigration officers to treat him as an adult and that had not changed on receipt of his birth certificate, the authenticity of which was doubted. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The Family Division in a case for financial provision following a divorce in a six year marriage considered the various factors in s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1925 and came to conclusion on a clean break solution taking into account their pension entitlements. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court found certain facts in relation to a case in which a child C1 in the female public toilets. The facts as found meant that the threshold criteria of s 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 had been made out and the court was satisfied that the only order that could and should be made for C1 was a care order with a long term fostering plan. 

Mortgage – Receiver. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against the dismissal of his claim for damages for breach of duty against the second and third defendant receivers. The judge had been right to dismiss the claim on the basis that any duties owed by the receivers in relation to an insurance claim had been owed exclusively to the claimant's trustee-in-bankruptcy, and the claimant had not produced the evidence necessary to establish his case on causation. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Judge's charge – Mixed statements by accused. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of robbery and murder, attempting to defeat the ends of justice and possessing heroin, who contended that the trial judge had misdirected the jury as to the significance as evidence of the exculpatory parts of mixed statements he had made, the court held that the jury were misdirected, they were then correctly directed, at least in relation to one statement, but immediately thereafter again misdirected in a fundamental respect, and the misdirection had led to a miscarriage of justice. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court, in allowing the claimant non-Arab Darfuri's claim for judicial review, held that it was beyond belief how anyone could possibly reasonably have believed that there had been very exceptional circumstances for the claimant's immigration detention. Further, the test for the purpose of certification of her human rights claim as clearly unfounded had clearly not been met, as the arguable real risk of refoulement had not been taken into account. 

Arbitration – Arbitrator. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's application, under s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, challenging an award on jurisdiction. It held, among other things, that there was a valid arbitration provision and there had been neither an agreed abandonment of arbitration nor a tacit abandonment to be inferred from the conduct or lack of conduct of the defendant. 

Immigration – Detention. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claim by the claimant that he was entitled to damages following detention for false imprisonment arising out of detention by the defendant at an Immigration Removal Centre. In so doing, he found that the defendant had breached his own rules in in deciding to maintain detention despite a report being made under rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules; SI 2001/238.