Latest Cases

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. 

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's application to set aside a judgment on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud, and allowed the defendants' application to strike out the claimant's application on the grounds that it was an abuse of process, in proceedings concerning the rights to recordings of Jimi Hendrix's performances. 

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. 

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. 

Employment – 'Worker'. The appellant was a doctor whose services were provided to the first respondent NHS Trust, through the second respondent. He brought a number of claims before an employment tribunal (the tribunal), including claims for racial discrimination and detrimental treatment due to 'whistleblowing'. The tribunal found that the appellant was not an employee or 'worker' for the purposes of s 230 (3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT), dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the tribunal had been entitled to find hat the appellant was, in fact, a 'client or customer' for the purposes of s 230(3)(b) of the Act, as the appellant was free to work as and when he wanted, and the work undertaken for the respondents was not exclusive. The EAT further held that the appellantt had implicitly abandoned his argument under s 43K(1)(a) of the Act, by not pursuing the argument against the respondents. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Family Division allowed an application by the Czech Republic seeking a transfer request in respect of care proceedings initiated regarding three children from the Czech Republic who had been living in the United Kingdom since 2009 in circumstances where the grounds for making such a request were made out. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (Deutsche Rockwool) against a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning invalidity proceedings between Deutsche Rockwool and Ceramicas del Foix, SA (Ceramicas) relating to the application for a declaration of invalidity by Deutsche Rockwool in respect of a figurative sign depicting the words 'Rock & Rock' successfully registered by Ceramicas. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 (on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community) should be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in order to penalise a failure to comply with the obligation to declare laid down in art 3 of that regulation, imposed payment of an administrative fine, the amount of which corresponded to 60% of the amount of undeclared cash, where that sum was more than €50,000.