Latest Cases

Immigration – Appeal. Following a sentence of imprisonment of eight years, the appellant was made the subject of a deportation notice. The appellant relied on the fact that his wife and daughter were United Kingdom citizens. His appeal was dismissed by both the First-tier and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chambers). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed his appeal. There was no doubt that, if the appellant's wife was herself compelled to leave, the child would be compelled to go with her, but there was no compulsion on the wife and, in those circumstances, the child could not be said to be compelled either. 

Copyright – Infringement. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to introduce a new s 28B into the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which created an exception to copyright based upon personal private use, without a compensation scheme. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that Secretary of State's decision had been nowhere near to having been justified by the evidence that had been specifically accepted and endorsed. Accordingly, the decision to introduce s 28B of the Act in the absence of a compensation mechanism had been unlawful. 

Child – Care. A baby, M, died whilst in the care of his mother and her partner, A. After his death, M was found to have sustained bruises and a fractured right tibia. The mother subsequently gave birth to another child and, in view of the circumstances of M's death, the local authority began care proceedings. In the present fact-finding proceedings, the authority did not seek to argue that either the mother or A were responsible for M's death. Rather, the focus was on the causes of the fracture and bruises, and whether M was neglected by his mother and A. The Family Division, on the evidence, made some, but not all, of the findings sought by the authority. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The present case concerned the boundaries to ministers being lobbied by a Member of Parliament (MP) about a matter affecting her constituency if their decision was not to be tainted by unlawfulness. The Planning Court held that there was nothing unlawful in ministers being lobbied by an MP on a constituency planning matter so long as ministers acted fairly and consistently with the standards of propriety set by the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000, SI 2000/1624, the Ministerial Code and planning propriety guidance. Accordingly, it dismissed the claimant's challenge to the refusal of planning permission for a wind farm. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The claimant had, unsuccessfully, sought judicial review of the defendant planning authority's decision to proceed to a referendum on a local development plan and against the conclusion that a strategic environmental assessment had not been required. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/767, on its true construction, did permit allocation of sites for particular development in national development plans. Further, it could not be said that the author of the screening report had failed to take the positive environmental effects of the development plan into account. 

Trust and trustee – Trustee. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of trust deeds in respect of family land, the sons would not at any stage acquire an absolute interest in any share which passed to them on the death of the survivor of their parents. Further, the court had the power to give to retrospectively approve a transaction, which would otherwise be a breach of the self‑dealing rule, which prevented trustees from purchasing trust property. 

Immigration – Asylum – Judicial review. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition brought by an asylum seeker after the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) allowed his asylum claim on appeal and the Upper Tribunal (UT) subsequently set aside the FTT decision and directed that there be a re-determination, the court held that the UT decision was competently amenable to judicial review, the petition raised 'a point of principle or practice' and the judicial review application was not barred by delay by the petitioner, however the UT determination would and should have been no different if it had been made after the Supreme Court's decision in another case concerning the treatment and evidential value of language analysis for the determination of origin. 

Minor – Abduction. A was three years and nine months old, and had been living in the United Kingdom with her mother since May 2014. A was born in Hungary and her mother was Hungarian. In December 2013 the mother and A returned to Hungary. The father brought proceedings for A's summary return to Italy pursuant to the provisions of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, which drafted into UK law the provisions of the Hague Convention and the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Family Division held that A was habitually resident in Hungry at the time of her removal to the UK and that the father's application had to be dismissed. 

Shipping – Bill of lading. The claimants brought a claim against the defendants in respect of loss and damage caused to bags of rice shipped on a vessel by the first defendant carrier under bills of lading. The Commercial Court, in determining a preliminary issue, held that, construing the contracts of carriage as a whole and applying settled law, the charterparty incorporated in the bills of lading had imposed responsibility on the charterers or cargo interests for bad loading and discharge of the cargo. To the extent that it was established that damage to the bags of rice had been caused by bad loading and/or discharge, as opposed to bad stowage, that damage had been the responsibility of the cargo interests who could not recover in respect of such damage from the carrier. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. A trustee in bankruptcy sought directions from the court in regard to when an action in progress at the time of the trustee's appointment was adopted by the trustee, whether there was any reason in principle why the trustee should necessarily be required, simply by his adoption of the action, to pay the other side's costs of legal proceedings including those incurred at the time when he was not a party and the action was being concluded by the bankrupt for his own account. The Supreme Court held that he would not be held personally liable for any costs in relation to the action up to an including the order of the Court of Appeal by virtue of the fact of his office as trustee in bankruptcy or of his adoption of the appeal.