Latest Cases

Warrant – Search warrant. The claimants sought judicial review of the issue and execution of two search warrants issued on the second defendant's application by the first defendant magistrates' court. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that no warrants had been necessary, as neither premises were used exclusively as a dwelling and reg 21(1) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1277, sufficed. Everything had been done within scope and nothing had been seized to which the second defendant had not been entitled. Accordingly, the warrants would be quashed, but no orders made for other relief. 

Company – Register of members. The proceedings concerned the beneficial ownership of the fourth defendant company. The claimants sought an order for rectification of the membership. The defendants counterclaimed, contending that the first defendant, I, was the sole beneficial owner of the company. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the first defendant had not proved his case. The claim was allowed and the counterclaim was dismissed. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Afghani national claimed damages for unlawful immigration detention for 19 days. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had failed to show that his serious mental illness could not be satisfactorily managed in conditions of detention. The Secretary of State had been correct and, in any event, had been entitled to the view that the claimant had not fallen into the category of someone in respect of whom there had been independent evidence of torture. Further, it could not be said that a reasonable time to effect deportation had expired. 

Arbitration – Award. In a dispute concerning the construction of a vessel, the arbitrator found for the defendant, TMI. The claimant company, Damen, sought to challenge the arbitrator's award on the ground that, first, the delay in the publication of the award amounted to a breach of the arbitrator's duty under s 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and, secondly, the arbitrator had failed to deal with all of the issues put to him and/or had failed to consider central issues and/or failed to take proper consideration of key evidence. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the application, held that it was no more than an impermissible attempt to criticise the arbitrator's evaluation and analysis of the evidence. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by the Gambling Commission (formerly the National Lottery Commission, established in the United Kingdom), against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mediatek Italia Srl and another and the Gambling Commission concerning the registration by the latter of a Community figurative trade mark depicting a smiling hand. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Indian nationals sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision refusing their application for leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had not given any consideration to para 276ADE of the Immigration Rules in her decision as to the first and second applicants, which also rendered the decision as to the third claimant unlawful. Her further decision could not render academic those failings, as it had done no more than adopt the conclusions and reasoning found in the earlier unlawful decision. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court had given judgment in favour of the claimant on his application for judicial review of his immigration detention. The parties were agreed that the judge had erred in some important respects and that his decision could not stand. The claimant's solicitors suggested inviting the court to approve a consent order setting aside the judge's order and remitting the matter to the Administrative Court for re-hearing. The Secretary of State sought the court's clarification of the effect of such an order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, given the deficiencies in the judgment, it could not stand. Cases which gave rise to disputed issues of fact, such as the present, were not well suited to trial in the Administrative Court and should be transferred to the Queen's Bench Division or county court for trial as a Pt 7 claim. The present proceedings were transferred to the Queen's Bench Division for a fresh determination. 

Value added tax – Supply of goods or services. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) rejecting the Revenue's case that the FTT had erred in: (i) its approach to the characterisation of loan broking services as made by a company to which Mr Newey had transferred his loan broking business; and (ii) deciding that the arrangements at issue had not constituted an abuse practice. 

Value added tax – Input tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) upheld the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to allow the appeal brought by the taxpayer University of Cambridge against a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to refuse the university's claim to deduct some of the VAT paid in respect of services supplied to the university by managers of the Cambridge University Endowment Fund. The tribunal decided that the costs associated with the university's investment activity had been part of the university's overheads and, as such, deductible in accordance with the agreement existing between the university and the Revenue. 

Arbitration – Jurisdiction. The claimant was given permission to enforce an arbitration award against the defendant, requiring payment of damages for breaches of two contracts, pursuant to s 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The defendant's application to set aside that order was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal, held that, on the evidence, the defendant had not played a part in the arbitration relating to the second contract, which it denied it had entered into, and it had not lost the right to challenge the arbitrator's substantive jurisdiction in relation to it. Further, the defendant had shown that it had a real prospect of success.