Latest Cases

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. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Akzo Nobel NV (Akzo) for annulment of Commission Decision of 30 June 2011, amending Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final relating to a proceeding under art 81 EC and art 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement in so far as it had been addressed to Akzo and Akcros Chemicals Ltd. 

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. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that having regard to sch 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and r 3A Court of Protection Rules 2007, SI No 1744/07, what was necessary to secure the rights of a patient effectively transferred from the Irish health care system to the United Kingdom system, was to seek clarification from the Irish Court into whether the patient needed to be made a party to the proceedings. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Privy Council, dismissed the appellants' appeals against their convictions for murder and, in refusing leave to appeal against sentence, held that it had no jurisdiction to order the commutation of the death sentences which had been lawfully passed. It held that it had not had jurisdiction to order commutation of the sentence in Matthew v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2004] All ER (D) 116 (Jul) or in Ramdeen v Secretary of State for Trinidad and Tobago [2014] UKPC 7, and that those decisions should not be followed. 

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. 

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. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The claimant applied for: (i) summary judgment and for costs; and (ii) committal of the first defendant for contempt of court. The Queen's Bench Division gave summary judgment for the claimant in relation to the admitted issues and declined to give summary judgment on two disputed matters. Having held that it was appropriate to address the question of contempt at the time of the present proceedings and that, in the circumstances, there was no requirement upon the claimant to obtain leave before bringing the committal proceedings, a fine of £1,000 was imposed on the first defendant. 

Practice – Conflict of laws. A company applied to stay two actions brought in England by its shareholder, seeking relief under ss 996 and 125 of the Companies Act 2006. The company relied on its pending claim against the defendant before the court in Malaysia. The Chancery Division dismissed the application for a stay, ruling that both actions were proceedings which fell within art 24 of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 1215/ 2012, which created an exclusive jurisdiction in favour of England for two categories of proceedings. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union partially annulled a decision of the European Commission which had rejected a request for confidential treatment submitted by Pilkington Group Ltd (Pilkington) under art 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission (on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings). The request for confidential treatment related to the Commission's finding, inter alia, that certain companies, including Pilkington, had infringed art 81 EC and art 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement by participating, over various periods in a set of anticompetitive agreements and concerted practices in the automotive glass sector in the European Economic Area.