Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against the dismissal of his application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision refusing his application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) migrant, pursuant to para 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules. The decision under challenge was a decision made in the exercise of the power conferred on the Secretary of State by s 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. It was for the Secretary of State or her officials to determine which provisions of the Immigration Rules applied and whether relevant conditions were satisfied, including the determination of relevant questions of fact. Their findings on such matters were open to challenge in judicial review proceedings only on Wednesbury principles. 

Immigration – Appeal. The defendant Lord Chancellor appealed against the judge's decision that the Fast Track Rules (the FTR), which governed appeals to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) against refusals by the Secretary of State of asylum applications, were ultra vires. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the FTR were systematically unfair and unjust, as they had not struck the correct balance between speed and efficiency, and fairness and justice. 

Magistrates – Proceedings. The appellant Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated against the district judge's decision, refusing to make a criminal behaviour order against the respondent. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal, gave guidance on s 22 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. It found that the judge had erred by having focussed on the positive elements of such order to help prevent a person from engaging in anti-social conduct and regarding them as dispositive. 

Costs – Criminal cases. The appellant Chief Constable appealed by way of case stated against the justices' order to pay the respondent's costs of a withdrawn application for a sexual offences prevention order. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the justices had not properly exercised their discretion to award costs against the Chief Constable, as he had not acted unreasonably in having made the application or in withdrawing it. 

Damages – Personal injury. The Queen's Bench Division held, on a preliminary issue, that the a road traffic accident and/or the treatment the claimant received post-accident had caused or materially contributed to the stroke suffered by the claimant approximately one month later. 

Arbitration – Award. In seeking to enforce an arbitration award, the claimant had obtained a third party debt order and receivership order against the defendant in respect of sums due to it under letters of credit. The orders were subsequently set aside on the defendant's application. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal as the court had not had the jurisdiction to make the orders in the first place and because, on the proper construction of the letters of credit, the defendant had not been the creditor. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the action brought by Cactus SA against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Cactus SA and Isabel Del Rio Rodríguez, regarding the registration by the latter for a figurative sign depicting the words 'CACTUS OF PEACE' and 'CACTUS DE LA PAZ' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH (Westermann) against a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Westermann and Diset, SA, concerning the application by the former for registration of a figurative sign depicting the words 'BAMBINO LÜK'. 

Income tax – Capital allowances. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by the taxpayer against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to the effect that the taxpayer had not been entitled to an annual investment allowance on the basis that he had permanently discontinued his trade in the tax year ended 31 March 2009, being the effect of s 38 of the Capital Allowances Act 2001. The tribunal decided that a discontinuance of a trade at the end of a chargeable period was a discontinuance of that trade in that period. 

Child – Care. In two cases involving the suspected planned removal of children to a war torn country, the Family Division made findings of fact and accepted the parents' submissions that the children should be returned to them with stringent protective measures.