Latest Cases

Immigration – Removal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held, inter alia, that s 3C(4) of the Immigration Act 1971 precluded an application for variation of leave 'while that leave is extended by virtue of this section' and, like s 3C(2), was consistent only with a continuation of the leave that existed before the application. The provision in s 10(8) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, that the notification 'invalidates any leave … previously given to him', was to make it clear that its effect was that, from the date of the notification, that which had previously been done was undone. It was not implicitly drawing a distinction between leave pursuant to s 3 and leave pursuant to s 3C of the 1971 Act. 

Practice – Hearing. The claimants appealed against the judge's decision that their proceedings were proceedings in which a closed material application might be made to the court, under s 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had correctly decided to make a s 6 declaration before having considered the claimants' application, under CPR 3.1(2)(m), for an order requiring the Secretary of State to plead a full defence, rather than a limited defence, which stated that the government would neither confirm nor deny the facts pleaded in their claim. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The claimant trade association whose members were primarily Gibraltar-based gambling operators who provided remote gambling services to United Kingdom customers issued judicial review proceedings, arguing that the new tax regime relating to remote gambling was incompatible with art 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Administrative Court decided to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. It further rejected the defendants' contention that the application should not be entertained because there was an alternative remedy and the claimant could not seek to override the UK legislation because it had no directly effective EU law rights. 

Legal aid – Entitlement. The Official Solicitor sought judicial review of the exceptional case funding (ECF) scheme on the basis that it failed to properly deal with claims made by those who lacked capacity. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the ECF scheme did not ensure that applicants' human rights were not breached or were not likely to be breached, in particular, the relevant forms were far too complex. Further, the rigidity of the merits test and the manner in which it was applied were wholly unsatisfactory. 

European Union – Free movement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by the trustees of the BT Pension Scheme, against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) that its claim for tax credits in relation to dividend income received from foreign companies and, save in relation to a certain period, its claim for dividends paid by an English resident company which it elected to attribute to income received by it from foreign subsidiaries, were time-barred. However, it held that those claims which were not time-barred raised a question of EU law regarding the EU principle of free movement of capital, which ought to be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union. 

Arbitration – Award. The Commercial Court held that, in a dispute over an arbitrator's findings in a shipping case, although the arbitrator had been wrong not to recognise his jurisdiction over the dispute, he would in any case have rejected the claimant's contention about it, and so the claimant's application to set the award aside would be dismissed. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection considered several cases before it in the light of guidance from the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal on the subject of deprivation of liberty in the context of Sch 1A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which contained a scheme whereby a managing authority of a hospital or care home was allowed to deprive a patient or resident of his or her liberty. 

Housing – Local authority houses. The parties had entered into a joint tenancy of a local authority flat prior to the breakdown of their relationship. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal against an order transferring the tenancy into the sole name of the respondent, held that the judge had had to make a difficult decision on the balance of hardship and there had been no error of law in the way that he had struck the balance. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant parish council applied to quash the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to grant planning permission for an affordable housing development on a green field site within its boundary. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the inspector had misinterpreted and misapplied the rural exception site policy, and had failed to give adequate reasons for her decision, including by failing to expressly address the claimant's submissions on the proper interpretation and application of the policy. 

Advocate – Complaint – Inadequate professional services. Court of Session: Allowing an advocate's appeal against a decision of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission upholding a complaint against him, the court held that the Commission had made at least one fundamental error, over and above the accepted inadequacy of the reasons given for the decision; that there was no good reason to remit the matter to the Commission for a fresh adjudication; and that it should substitute its own decision for that of the Commission, namely that the advocate did not provide an inadequate professional service.