Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In a case of slander brought by the claimant, a 'disfellowshipped' Jehovah's Witness, against the defendants (also Jehovah's Witnesses), the Queen's Bench dismissed an appeal by the defendants against a master's refusal to strike out the claim on the basis that cases for slander were fact specific and unsuitable for summary disposal unless clear cut. 

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. 

Costs – Protective costs order. The appellant sought a protective costs order in his appeal to have his designation under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 declared void from the outset. He contended that, on closed material which he would never see, his claim might prove to be ill-founded. The Administrative Court recognised that a protective costs order might, in principle, be appropriate to the type of case where individuals had been accused of terrorism and reliance was placed upon closed evidence, rendering it impossible to determine the merits of any challenge and gave five strict conditions. However, a protective costs order was premature at the present point. 

Costs – Order for costs. In earlier proceedings the claimants had been awarded damages against the defendant proprietor of three newspapers for the infringements of privacy rights based on phone hacking, private investigators and publication of articles in the defendant's newspapers. They sought indemnity costs relying on CPR Pt 36 offers, which had not been accepted and on the defendant's alleged unreasonable conduct in the litigation. The Chancery Division dismissed the applications. The Pt 36 offer by one defendant had lost much of its significance as a result of its withdrawal and a 'Calderbank' offer in respect of the other defendant was weaker by having never been a Pt 36 offer. The defendant's conduct had not been so unreasonable as to warrant the making of an indemnity costs order. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.