Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection affirmed an order previously made appointing two of the patient's children to act as deputies for properties and financial affairs following a purported appeal by his other children. The factor of magnetic importance was that the patient had named the two children in his will, which suggested that he trusted them to deal with his affairs and that they would act fairly towards their siblings. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Spain for membership of a terrorist organisation. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the appellant's extradition was barred, under s 12A of the Extradition Act 2003, as the judicial authority had not shown that the sole reason for the decision to prosecute not having been made was the appellant's absence from Spain. 

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary proceedings. The Administrative Court held that the question of whether or not, under r 4(5) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, more than five years had elapsed since events giving rise to an allegation of fitness impairment of the appellant general practitioner was an objective question of precedent or jurisdictional fact and the date stated in the complaint against him had been wrong, leading the registrar into material error. Accordingly, the court had power to intervene to quash the decision and remit the matter for reconsideration. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union had to be interpreted as meaning that agreements to share clients, such as those concluded between the private pensions funds in the main proceedings, constituted agreements with an anti-competitive object, the number of clients affected by such an agreement being irrelevant for the purpose of assessing the requirement relating to the restriction of competition within the internal market. 

Guarantee – Construction. The claimant had issued proceedings seeking payment from the defendant insurance company under advance payment bonds and performance bonds that it had issued. The claimant applied for summary judgment, contending that the bonds were 'on demand' and so the liability to pay had arisen. The Commercial Court held that there was no material difference between general principles of contractual construction and 'Paget's presumption' for the construction of such instruments. Further, Paget's presumption applied not only where a bank had issued an instrument, but also to an insurance company, in the ordinary course of its business, particularly where the language of the instrument clearly indicated an intention to create an 'on demand bond'. The claimant's application was granted where, on the true construction of the instruments, they were 'on demand' bonds. 

Income tax – Partnership. The 154 taxpayers issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the legality of partner payment notices given by the defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners in the exercise of new powers under the Finance Act 2014. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no breach of natural justice and the decision to give the notices was neither unreasonable nor irrational. Further, there had been no breach of the taxpayers' legitimate expectations, or their rights under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights or art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. 

Income tax – Return. The Upper Tribunal (Tax Chamber) ruled on various issues arising from an application by the taxpayer for judicial review of a demand from the Revenue and Customs Commissioners relating to his tax return, made pursuant to Ch 6 of Pt 4 of the Income Tax Act 2007. The tribunal decided that although the judicial review procedure used by the taxpayer to challenge the Revenue's demand had been inappropriate, having heard the parties' arguments, it would grant declarations to give effect to what the tribunal had decided. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The claimants issued proceedings in tort, under the Human Rights Act 1998 and public law claims concerning their detention by British armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq for longer than 96 hours. The judge's findings included that the act of state defence applied to the tort claims. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the application of the act of state defence required compelling considerations of public policy which would require the court to deny a claim in tort founded on an act of the executive performed abroad. 

Fiduciary duty – Breach of duty. The Chancery Division, following a finding that the defendant had acted in breach of fiduciary duty to the claimant company, held an inquiry into the benefits received by the defendant as a result of the said breaches of fiduciary duty. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant Colombian national's appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) dismissing her appeal against a deportation order made against her by the respondent Secretary of State, pursuant to s 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007. The UT had had jurisdiction to consider, and had been right to hold, that the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had erred in law and that its decision could not stand. In re-making the decision, the UT had identified and carefully considered all the factors which had favoured the appellant and given full weight to them. It had been entitled, nonetheless, to conclude that they had not been strong enough to outweigh the public interest in deportation.