Latest Cases

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. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The President of the Court of Protection had given two judgments in an attempt to streamline processes in that court in circumstances where deprivation of liberty applications were made. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the President had not had jurisdiction to engage in the procedure that he had and that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the two appeals that had been brought. If it had had jurisdiction, it would have held that the President's decision that a person who might be deprived of his liberty did not always have to be joined as a party to the proceedings had been incorrect. 

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. 

Criminal law – Trial. Criminal proceedings against the defendants on charges of rape, false imprisonment and assault by penetration had been stayed by the judge as an abuse of process of the court following serious failures in relation to disclosure. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in setting aside the stay held that, in the circumstances, the proceedings should continue. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of imprisonment for two years and six months for theft, criminal damage and burglary, committed in 2002 and 2003. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judicial authority was not in breach of the specialty provisions. Further, the appellant had been responsible for much of the delay and his extradition would not have exceptionally serious consequences for his family which outweighed the public interest in extradition. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant, a six year old boy, suffered serious injuries following an accident in a swimming pool in which he was found at the bottom of the pool but later resuscitated. The Queen's Bench Division held that the lifeguards on duty had failed to identify the claimant as a child at risk had they done so they would have registered his disappearance and immediately searched to find him and remove him from the water. There was a causal link between that breach of duty and the injuries the claimant had sustained and he was entitled to judgment accordingly. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The defendant was one of fifty-two defendants sentenced by the same judge for their involvement in a violent episode of public disorder in Birmingham City Centre in July 2013 arising from a demonstration by the English Defence League and a counter-demonstration by United Against Fascism. Having pleaded guilty to violent disorder, he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that there had been sufficient material to infer that, at least in part, the defendant's actions had been religiously or racially motivated but that the judge's starting point of three years' imprisonment had been too high. Consequently, the sentence was reduced to one of 16 months' imprisonment. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of certain provisions of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax). The request had been made in proceedings between Lisboagás GDL — Sociedade Distribuidora de Gás Natural de Lisboa SA (Lisboagás) and the respondent Portuguese fiscal and customs authority concerning self-assessments for VAT by Lisboagas which the respondent had refused to accept. 

Land – Charge. The claimant bank had a registered charged over the first defendant's property. The second defendant claimed to have leased the property with an unregistered option to buy it from the first defendant. The bank sought declarations concerning the priority of its legal charge over the property. The Chancery Division held that the bank was entitled to the declarations sought where, at the time the charge had been executed, it had had no actual or constructive knowledge of any interest in the property other than that of the first defendant and where the option, even if genuine, had not been validly exercised prior to the end of the lease. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 should be interpreted as meaning that legal proceedings for compensation for disturbance of ownership and property rights, contractual performance and damages, brought by private persons who were holders of government bonds against the issuing state, fell within the scope of that regulation in so far as it did not appear that they were manifestly outside the concept of civil or commercial matters.