Latest Cases

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Production of documents. The Companies Court dismissed the applicant liquidators' application relief from the sanction imposed by a default order that had been imposed for non-disclosure in the proceedings. In the circumstances, given the liquidators' failure to carry out proper disclosure, it was inappropriate to grant relief from the sanction imposed. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellants had all claimed asylum in the United Kingdom from Afghanistan as minors. Their claims had been refused and they had been granted discretionary leave to remain, in the case of the appellant in the first appeal, for periods of under one year, which, they contended, excluded them from appealing against the rejection of their asylum claims because s 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provided that an appeal against the rejection of an asylum application could only be made where the person had been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK for a period exceeding one year. Appeals to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, on the ground that ss 82 and 83 of the 2002 Act were incompatible with their rights to an effective remedy under art 39 of Directive (EC) 2005/85 (on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting an withdrawing refugee status) were dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal decisions, holding that the scheme under s 83 of the 2002 Act satisfied the requirement of providing an effective remedy for an applicant who was refused asylum, but given leave to remain for a matter of months, and was accordingly, not incompatible with art 39 of Directive (EC) 2005/85. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant had sustained severe injuries when a collision occurred between the claimant's bicycle and the defendant's car, causing the claimant to fall sideways on to the road. The Queen's Bench Division held that, in the circumstances, primary liability was established but that the appropriate apportionment of fault for the claimant was 25 per cent. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The issue for determination was whether the claimant was entitled to rely on art 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 to sue an alleged foreign-domiciled tortfeasor in the same proceedings as a direct claim brought against such tortfeasor's foreign-domiciled liability insurer in the English court. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that art 11(3) of the Regulation applied to the claim which the claimant wished to pursue against the second defendant tortfeasor, notwithstanding that the claimant had been seeking the procedural advantage of the higher quantum of damages that would be awarded by an English court. 

European Union – Directive. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Estonia for annulment of certain provisions of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings). The Court decided that the European Parliament and the Council had not infringed, respectively: (i) the principle of proportionality; (ii) the principle of subsidiarity; and (iii) the obligation to state reasons. 

Trust and Trustee – Settlement. The Chancery Division approved an arrangement for the variation of the trusts of a settlement, where the trust fund was subject to inheritance tax, to incorporate a power to accumulate income to meet future periodic inheritance tax changes, and to extend the trust period. The proposed arrangement did not give rise to a resettlement of the fund and was to the beneficiaries of the trust. 

Criminal evidence – Admissibility of evidence – Parliamentary privilege. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal by an appellant who was charged with perjury and who objected to the admissibility at his trial of evidence of the asking of certain questions of him by the accused in another, earlier trial on a charge of perjury, an objection which the judge repelled, the court held that for the Crown to lead evidence of a passage in the transcript, where reference was made to the appellant having given evidence before a Parliamentary select committee, would be to offend against the privilege of Parliament or, to put it differently, would lead the High Court of Justiciary to intrude upon an area where it had no jurisdiction. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the competent authority's decisions finding no reasonable grounds for concluding that he had been trafficked from Vietnam to Russia or onward from Russia to the United Kingdom. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the reasonable grounds decisions had been flawed by failures to address the right question, to apply the right burden of proof, and failures to apply the sympathetic and inquisitorial approach to credibility advocated in the defendant Secretary of State's guidance. That also constituted a breach of the duty of inquiry, under art 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

European Union – Rules on competition. On the application by FSL Holdings and other companies (the applicants) for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 7273 final of 12 October 2011 (the contested decision) relating to a proceeding under art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine, the General Court of the European Union: (i) partially annulled the contested decision relating to a proceeding under art 101 TFEU in so far as it referred to a certain period; and (ii) reduced the fine imposed on the applicants from €8,919,000 to €6,689,000. 

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. The claimants sought judicial review of the decision of the recorder of the defendant county court, finding them parties to fraud in a case in which they were not parties. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that the claimants should have applied to be joined to the proceedings and for the judgment to be altered. If refused, they could have advanced the same objections by way of an appeal. However, the court had jurisdiction and would not refuse to hear the claims because of a theoretical alternative remedy. The recorder had behaved unfairly in having found the claimants had been involved in fraud and dishonesty.