Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to enter. The appellant had succeeded in an out of country appeal against deportation, but was refused entry clearance to re-join his partner and child in the United Kingdom. His appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (FTT) was dismissed, as was his appeal to the Upper Tribunal (UT). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, refused him permission to appeal. The UT had identified an error of law made by the FTT and had not, itself, erred in using the findings of fact made in the deportation appeal as a starting point for drawing its own conclusions on the issue of entry clearance. 

Trust and trustee – Constructive trust. The Court of Appeal, in the circumstances, dismissed the defendant's appeal against an order declaring that the parties held the beneficial shares in their jointly owned as tenants in common in shares of 85% in favour of the claimant and 15% in favour of the defendant. 

Sale of goods – Payment. The Queen's Bench Division allowed a claim by American Express in respect of non-payment by the defendant on two accounts the Gold and Centurion account held by him with Amex. The court held that the Amex succeeded on a contractual basis and further the defendant's evidence in regard to being a victim of credit card fraud was inherently implausible. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The family Division, in an application for financial provision by the petitioner wife in relation to marital assets, held that the wife was entitled to half the assets which amounted to £8m and that the structure of the award was in the form of transfer of companies and a lump sum. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The appellant appealed against the decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel (the Panel) of the respondent General Medical Council, finding charges against her proved and directing the appellant's erasure from the medical register. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that Panel had not been entitled to have made a finding of misconduct and dishonesty associated with one charge, but the serious misconduct and other findings of dishonesty, coupled with all the circumstances, had justified the Panel's conclusion. 

Limitation of action – Court's power to override time limit in personal injury or fatal accident claim. The Queen's Bench Division made decisions in the case for the purpose of s 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 concerning when the claimant's date of knowledge had been in relation to an injury suffered at the second defendant hospital following the birth of her second child. The court further decided to disapply s 11 by using s 33 of the Act. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant retired chartered civil engineer sought to quash the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, allowing the third defendant's appeal against the second defendant's refusal of planning permission and listed building consent. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the exclusion of the claimant's detailed solution to problems had not been unfair, a breach of the relevant rules had not caused prejudice and the claimant's qualifications had been considered. 

Company – Compulsory winding up. The claimant Secretary of State applied for the appointment of provisional liquidators to the defendant companies. The Chancery Division, in allowing the application, held that jurisdiction existed because a winding-up petition had been presented which was likely to succeed and the appointment of a provisional liquidator was justified. 

Practice – Hearing. The Secretary of State applied for a declaration, under s 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, to permit her to make a closed material application. The Divisional Court, in exercising the discretion to make the declaration, found the statutory pre-condition and two conditions satisfied. 

Arbitration – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court considered an application by the claimant for summary judgment, seeking to enforce two decisions of an adjudicator concerning delay in a construction contract made on the GC/Works/1 Single Stage Design & Build (1998) with Amendment 1 (2000) standard form. The court held that there was nothing in the points raised by the defendant, and the decisions would be enforced.