Latest Cases

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 – Workers. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 39(2) EC should be interpreted as not precluding a member state, for the purposes of charging income tax on a non-resident worker who had pursued his occupational activity in that member state during part of the year, from refusing to grant that worker a tax advantage which took account of his personal and family circumstances, on the basis that, although he had received, in that member state, all or almost all his income from that period, that income did not form the major part of his taxable income for the entire year in question. 

Contract – Offer and acceptance. The appellant sought to establish that there had been a contract for the sale of a property owned by the respondent company. The Privy Council held that there had been no binding contract between the parties and that, on that issue, the courts below had reached the correct conclusion. 

Criminal evidence – Perjury – Relevancy of indictment. High Court of Justiciary: In a case in which the accused challenged the relevancy of the indictment containing a charge of perjury, it being alleged that he had perjured himself when giving evidence as a defence witness at a trial for perjury (the original trial), the court held that the false evidence alleged in the indictment was not relevant evidence at the original trial and the charge of perjury in the indictment was irrelevant. 

Human rights – Right to respect for family and private life. Following previous decisions (see [2014] All ER (D) 156 (Dec) and [2015] All ER (D) 60 (Feb)), the Investigatory Powers Tribunal addressed outstanding issues. It declared that there had been a breach of the rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights of two of the ten claimants, as the policies of the first respondent (GCHQ) concerning time limits for retention and the procedure for selection of communications for examination had not been followed. As those claimants had not suffered material detriment, damage or prejudice, the determination constituted just satisfaction and no compensation would be awarded. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The proceedings arose out of the acquisition by the claimant from the defendant of one of its business divisions. The claimant claimed damages for loss it said resulted from fraudulent misrepresentations made by the defendant in respect of the forecasts on which the claimant relied, and damages for breach of contract. The defendant applied to strike out the particulars of claim or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The Commercial Court held that, in the circumstances, the defendant was entitled to the relief sought in one regard. 

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. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda (Infocit) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV and Infocit regarding the application by the latter company for registration of the word sign 'DINKOOL' as a Community trade mark. 

Customs and excise – Forfeiture. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeal by Ms Projosujadi against a decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to reject her appeal against the decision by a reviewing officer of the respondent Border Revenue not to restore to her an alligator-skin handbag bought for her in the United States by a friend which had been confiscated by the Border Force because it did not have the relevant certificates. The tribunal decided that in arriving at its decision the FTT had failed to deal with the issue of proportionality, thereby erring in law. The matter was remitted for further review by a different officer. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The applicants applied for a parental order in relation to a child, A, who had been born in South Africa following a surrogacy arrangement. The Family Division, in making a parental order, held that the criteria in s 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 had been met. Further, it was clearly in A's lifelong interests that there was consistency as to her legal status in relation to those who cared for her across the relevant jurisdictions where she was likely to live, and that could only be achieved in the present jurisdiction by the court making the order sought.