Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Zimbabwean national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing his application for discretionary leave to remain on the basis that it was inconsistent with that in his sister's case. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State's decision had not explained the distinction between the claimant and his sister, who had been given leave to remain. Further, the Secretary of State had amounted disregarded of the statutory appellate procedure by failing to follow or appeal a judge's order. 

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. 

Libel and slander – Privilege. In a pre-trial review of the claimant former Member of Parliament's libel action, the Queen's Bench Division refused to lay ground rules as to Parliamentary privilege, to strike out the claim as to the second article and to amend the claimant's costs budget. However, it struck out parts of the claimant's witness statement and case. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal of the defendant Ministry of Defence, rejected its challenges to the judge's factual finding that the claimant would have passed a Junior Command Course in 2009 and become a Corporal as from 31 March 2010 if the defendant had properly protected him on an insertion march in accordance with his medical certification. 

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. 

County court – Costs. The present appeal concerned, among other things, whether the court had power to order a tenant to pay any costs to the landlord under the terms of the lease where the costs had arisen in related Land Valuation Tribunal (LVT) proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the appellant could not show that the judge had not had power to deal with any costs incurred in the LVT proceedings. The LVT had not dealt with an order for payment of those costs and the respondent landlord could not be estopped from claiming them in the county court because the LVT could not have ordered it its costs under the terms of the lease. 

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. 

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. 

Immigration – Detention. In a claim for damages for unlawful detention arising out of his administrative detention by the defendant Secretary of State, the Queen's Bench Division decided the case on the facts before it and held that the Secretary of State had been justified in reaching a view that, amongst other things, the claimant's risk of re-offending and the risk that he might abscond were he released from detention was sufficient to justify his continued detention. 

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.