Latest Cases

Divorce – Appeal. The wife in divorce proceedings applied for permission to appeal out of time for a consent order to be set aside on the grounds of material non-disclosure. The Family Division gave permission to appeal out of time and allowed the appeal where there had been a breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure. 

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. 

Civil procedure – Personal injury – Expenses – Voluntary pre-action protocol. Sheriff Court: In a personal injury action in which the pursuer rejected the defender's offer to settle his claim and commenced proceedings, and then, the day before the case was to proceed to proof accepted a tender for £4,000 less than the pre-litigation offer, which had included expenses in terms of Voluntary Pre-action Protocol, the court held that the sheriff had erred in following the normal rule and finding the pursuer entitled to expenses to the date of tender and the defender to expenses from that date: there was a degree of unreasonableness in the pursuer's action in commencing proceedings which required that the defender should only be found liable for modified judicial expenses. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. In construing s 3C of the Immigration Act 1971, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that that an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom had to be one which was validly made in accordance with the rules and that section could not be read in such a way that a decision on the application for leave included a decision that there was no valid application. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed as there had been no valid applications. 

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. 

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. 

Police – Negligence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal against the dismissal of their claims for damages resulting from the disclosure of their address to the accused in criminal proceedings in which they were to be called as witnesses. It held, among other things, that the actions of the police in serving a witness summons, making a statement with a view to giving evidence of that fact and producing that statement to the prosecuting authority for the purposes of making an application for a warrant of arrest all formed part of their core function of obtaining and preserving evidence, in the discharge of which they did not owe a duty of care to the public at large. 

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. 

Conflict of laws – Foreign proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that English court had jurisdiction pursuant to section 5 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 to determine a dispute arising out of the claimant's employment with an English company whose parent company was a Massachusetts company, in circumstances where the claimant's contract of employment contained an express choice of Massachusetts law and an exclusive jurisdiction agreement in favour of the courts of Massachusetts. The court allowed the claimant's appeal against an order dismissing his application for an anti-suit injunction on the basis that it was bound by the decision in Samengo-Turner v J & H Marsh & McLennan (Services) Ltd [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 813. 

Pension – Pension schemes. On an appeal by a taxpayer against an assessment to a tax charge following withdrawal of approval of its pensions scheme, the Supreme Court held that the tax charge under s 591C of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, in a case that fell under s 591B(1), fell to be assessed in the chargeable period with effect from which the approval ceased to have effect in accordance with the terms of the statutory notice of withdrawal. Accordingly, the Revenue and Customs Commissioners had not been entitled to assess the taxpayer's scheme to tax under s 591B(1) in 2000, when the withdrawal had been notified, where the withdrawal notice had specified that the withdrawal of approval was to take effect from 1996.