Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Iraqi national applied for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of his application for leave to remain on the basis of his private life. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State's first decision had not addressed the evidence, but the second had. However, as the second decision was not a continuum of the first decision, the claimant had a statutory appeal against that decision. 

European Union – European institutions. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the application by Mr Gert-Jan Dennekamp for annulment of Decision A(2012) 13180 of the European Parliament refusing to grant him access to certain documents relating to the affiliation of certain members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme. The General Court decided that the contested decision would be annulled in so far as the European Parliament had refused to grant access to the names of the MEPs who had been members of the scheme. However, the action would be dismissed as to the remainder. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The appellant appealed against a decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel (the Panel), ordering that her name be erased from the medical register for failure to disclose information. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the Panel had not erred, in particular, there had been nothing wrong with its decision that it had been both necessary and proportionate, in the public interest, to direct that the appellant's name be erased from the medical register. 

Estoppel – Proprietary estoppel. The judge had held that the claimant was entitled to a right of way over land owned by the defendant, relying on the equitable doctrine of proprietary estoppel. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that: (i) the present court would not be justified in interfering with the judge's finding that the claimant had believed that it had or would have a right of way via the garden access; (ii) the judge's finding that the claimant had believed it had or would have a right of way across the garden because it had been encouraged so to believe by the defendant had been justified; (iii) there had not been any error in the judge's conclusions on detrimental reliance; and (iv) the judge's evaluation of the issue of unconscionable conduct had not been wrong. 

National Health Service – Duty to provide healthcare services. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimants' appeal, rejected their contention that the defendant Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in failing to exercise his power to require abortion services to be provided to women from Northern Ireland on the same basis that they were made available to women in England. The court held that the decision had not been irrational, nor had there been a breach of the claimants' rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Proceeds of crime – Unlawful conduct. In a case where the respondents applied to discharge a property freezing order made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in respect of proceeds of shares belonging to the respondent. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application and rejected S's submission that an order for the restoration of the shares to their lawful owner in consequence of the abandonment of forfeiture proceedings in Canada against her, precluded the prosecuting authorities anywhere else in the world from initiating proceedings under their domestic legislation against the proceeds of sale of those shares located within their jurisdiction. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The Technology and Construction Court held that, following its judgment on the substantive issues in a procurement dispute, the successful tendering party would not be entitled to an order requiring the defendant local authority to award a contract to it, but would be entitled to damages. 

Boundary – Hedge. In the course of the claimant's action in trespass, the parties disputed the boundary between their properties. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the first defendant's appeal, held that the evidence was not sufficient to rebut the presumptions which underlay the hedge and ditch rule. Further, nothing in the general depiction of boundaries in the conveyance to the claimant led to the conclusion that he had obtained anything less than the property along the boundary under the rule. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In a case in which the defendant local authority had moved residents from a care home, the claimants sought summary judgment on the basis that the authority had no realistic prospect of establishing that the actions of its employees were lawful following a consideration of s 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. There was also an application for disclosure. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed both applications. 

Contract – Repudiation. The Chancery Division, in a case concerning the employment status of the claimant fund manager, held that the doctrine of repudiatory breach was implicitly excluded in relation to multi-party agreements that fell within s 5 of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000. The claimant had locus standi to bring his claim but, in the circumstances, there was no proper basis in law upon which he might be entitled to claim a pro rata share in the profits of the LLP of which he had been a partner.