Latest Cases

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant, who had been sole attorney for her father under a Lasting Power of Attorney, was charged with fraud in respect of dealings with her father's money. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, considered an application by the prosecution under s 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, in circumstances where the proceedings had been stayed on that count where the judge had held that it would be an abuse of process to continue in the absence of further particulars. The court held that the indictment had been sufficient and ordered the proceedings to resume. 

Practice – Compromise of action. The Privy Council allowed the appellants' appeal against the ruling of the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas that the entire proceedings in a previous, separate action were a nullity. The Board held that, in the circumstances, the judge at first instance had been right to have regarded as meritless the submission that the consent orders in that action had been a nullity. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Jamaican national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing to revoke a deportation order and to certify that decision under s 96 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the fact that the claimant could rely on the passage of time, which he had not been able to do so when challenging the deportation order, clearly amounted to a new matter and that the decision could not be certified. 

Firearms – Possession. The defendant had pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited weapon, contrary to s 5(1)(af) of the Firearms Act 1968, in circumstances where he contended that he had legitimately acquired the weapon prior to the coming into force of that provision. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in quashing the conviction, held that, on the true construction of s 39(4) of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which introduced s 5(1)(af) into the 1968 Act, all that had been required was the obtaining of a firearm certificate and that failure to obtain such a certificate was an offence under s 1 of the 1968 Act and not s 5. 

Immigration – Asylum. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to accept his further representations as a fresh claim for asylum. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that, although there had been no express reference to the relevant policy, it was sufficiently clear that the claimant's period of residence in the United Kingdom had been considered. Further, the claimant's time in the UK had been considered in the context of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division held, in relation to a negligence claim against the solicitors who acted for the claimant in relation to his contract of employment with two Indian companies, that the solicitor had been negligent in failing to advise the claimant in relation to jurisdictional matters and that that failure had caused the claimant damage. 

Landlord and tenant – Action for possession. Following an appeal and many other applications by the tenant against his eviction for non-payment of rent, the Queen's Bench Division dismissed all application as being without merit. There had been no defence to the possession claim in circumstances where the defendant had been notified by the landlord of the change in ownership under s 3 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. 

Human rights – Right to life. The claimant mother of a soldier unlawfully killed in Iraq appealed against the Divisional Court's decision that there was no duty to investigate under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, alternatively, the duty had been discharged. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that an art 2 compliant investigation had been required, as there had been a failure of system or control. However, an investigation undertaken by the Army Board of Inquiry and a coroner's inquest had discharged that obligation. 

Immigration – Leave for indefinite stay. The claimant Irish national issued judicial review proceedings, effectively to establish that he had a right to reside in the United Kingdom as a qualified person, which would benefit his brother, G's, application for a permanent residence card. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, since G's second application for a permanent residence card remained outstanding, the claimant's application was premature. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In a case where an applicant sought to issue an interim injunction prior to the issue of proceedings, the Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application on the bases that the default position was that interim remedies were granted within existing proceedings and although those default positions could be varied where good cause was shown, each variation needed to be justified and considered separately.