Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The appeal concerned what regard, if any, when considering an application to extend the time for appealing in a family case relating to children, the judge should have to the overall merits of the proposed appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the father's appeal, held that, in the present case, the judge had underestimated the underlying merits of the father's appeal, considering that the new grounds of appeal had been merely arguable when, in truth, they had been unanswerable. That flawed analysis had caused him to attribute no real weight to the underlying merits in his relief from sanction analysis. The present case was one where the court could see, without much investigation, that the proposed grounds of appeal were very strong and the merits had a significant part to play when it came to balancing the various factors that had to be considered. 

European Union – Insolvency proceedings. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that arts 3(2) and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 (on insolvency proceedings) should be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the member state in which secondary insolvency proceedings had been opened had jurisdiction, concurrently with the courts of the member state in which the main proceedings had been opened, to rule on the determination of the debtor's assets falling within the scope of the effects of those secondary proceedings. 

Trial – New trial. The trial of claims brought by the respondent against the appellant had proceeded in the respondent's absence. The appellant's application for a new trial and for a stay of execution on the judgment was dismissed, as was his appeal. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that it was not surprising that the trial judge had not accepted the appellant's explanation for having missed the trial. Further, the appellant's failure to produce any evidence to sustain his claim that he had a good defence had been fatal to any prospect of it succeeding. The judge had done his best on the basis of the available material and his approach, in the circumstances, was not to be faulted. 

Road traffic – Driver's records. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision that requests from his business and its clients, pursuant to reg 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, SI 2002/2742, would be refused unless the business complied with a condition that it should become a member of an accredited trade association (ATA), pursuant to his policy. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the decision was not irrational. The Secretary of State had not imposed an unlawful and rigid pre-condition, and he had not surrendered his power under the Regulations to an ATA. 

Immigration – Education. The defendant Secretary of State found that a proxy test-taker had taken the claimant Bangladeshi national's English language tests and issued a notice of removal. The claimant sought judicial review. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that no improper purpose had been established. Further, an out of country appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) was a demonstrably superior mechanism for the present species of challenge and that fact rendered the claimant's further procedural unfairness ground of challenge moot, as that tribunal could consider that complaint. 

Immigration – Variation of leave to remain – Permission to appeal. Court of Session: Refusing an application for permission to appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) by four family members, whose application for variation of their leave to remain was refused by the Home Secretary and whose appeal against that decision was refused by the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and the UT, the court held that neither the FTT nor the UT erred in relation to the applicants' appeals in any way that was material and there was no question of the proposed appeal having strong prospects of success. 

Landlord and tenant – Recovery of possession. The claimant, a fully mutual housing association, had granted the defendants a tenancy of a property on the terms of a tenancy agreement. The claimant sought possession of the property after significant rent arrears had accumulated on the defendants' account. The Chancery Division rejected the defendants' defences and made an order for possession. 

European Union – Community institutions. The General Court of the European Union granted the applicant's request for annulment of the decision of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) to refuse him access to certain documents. The General Court decided that Cedefop had erred in law by illegally rejecting the applicant's request for access to those documents on the basis of the exceptions under art 4(1)(b) and art 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents). 

Company – Sale of company. The proceedings related to payment obligations arising out of the sale to the defendant company of a 50% interest in a company held by the claimant. The Commercial Court made a number of findings. Among other things, it allowed the claimant's application to join the Royal Bank of Canada as a co-claimant and allowed the defendant's claim against the claimant and a third party company. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. Three young persons subject to orders under the Irish Mental Health system were transferred to an institution in the United Kingdom. The Health Service Executive of Ireland (the HSE) sought orders under s 63 of and Sch 3 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) recognising and enforcing the orders made by the Irish High Court for the detention of the young persons. The Court of Protection found that the Irish Orders had to be recognised and enforced.