Latest Cases

Immigration – Detention. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, challenging his immigration detention between May 2008 and August 2012, excluding a two-month period of bail. The Administrative Court did not accept that the claimant's conduct in presenting himself first as one identity and nationality, later to change to another had principally been a symptom of mental illness. However, by December 2011, the Secretary of State had had a public law duty to release the claimant, as it had become quite clear that she would not be able to effect his deportation within a reasonable period. 

Company – Director. The claimant Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills brought proceedings against the defendants, who were the directors of a company that imported plywood and sheet materials. He submitted that the defendants had made a number of false representations regarding the company's finances. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the defendants were unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. A disqualification order would be made against either of them. 

Human Rights – Compatibility of legislation with provisions of human rights convention. The defendant Secretary of State refused to pay the claimants compensation under s 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 after their convictions had been overturned. The claimants issued judicial review proceedings, seeking a declaration of incompatibility between s 133(1ZA) of the Act and art 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the applications, applied authority to the effect that art 6(2) of the Convention had no bearing on a decision for compensation under s 133 of the Act. Accordingly, a declaration of incompatibility could not be made. 

European Union – Commission. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal brought by Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (Stichting) against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union by which the General Court had dismissed Stichting's application for annulment of the decision of the European Commission to refuse Stichting full access to several documents relating to the negotiations between the European Union and India aimed at concluding a free trade agreement, pursuant to the third indent of art 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. 

Education – Teacher. On the appellant's retirement from his position as a senior lecturer with the respondent university, an issue arose as to whether he had achieved the requisite number of years of service to entitle him to supplementary pension benefits. The Supreme Court of Jamaica had allowed the appellant's claim, but the Court of Appeal had allowed the university's appeal. The Privy Council allowed the appeal. While the appellant had not commenced service on the date on which he had contended, he had, on a proper construction of the terms of his contract of engagement, accrued the necessary level of service to entitle him to the supplementary benefits. 

European Union – Excise duty. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that, for the purposes of the applying the reduced rate of excise duty to beer, the condition laid down in art 4(2) of Council Directive (EEC) 92/83 (on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages) according to which a brewery should not operate under licence, was not met if the brewery concerned made its beer in accordance with an agreement pursuant to which it was authorised to use the trade marks and production process of a third party. 

European union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Bora Creations, SL (Bora), against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to invalidity proceedings between Beauté Prestige International, and Bora regarding the registration by Bora of the word 'essence' as a Community trade mark. 

Contract – Breach. The claimants purchased land and a business from the defendants. They brought proceedings, claiming that the defendants had made misstatements regarding the flow of sewage on the land, and had breached their contract. The Chancery Division held that the claims were made out as a matter of liability in relation both to misrepresentation and, to the extent of the business sale agreement, in breach of contract. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision returning his application for further leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) student as invalid. The Administrative Court held that, despite the Secretary of State's delay in serving her summary and detailed grounds of defence, the public interest lay in permitting her to respond to the claim. It dismissed the claimant's application, as it was commenced one year and four month's out of time, and there had been no unlawfulness in the consideration of his claim or in the decision to reject it as invalid. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant and the defendant companies had entered into a joint venture agreement concerning the development of a property. The Chancery Division granted the claimant summary judgment on its claim for specific performance of the agreement, specifically in respect of the transfer of shares from the defendant to the claimant where the defences raised stood no reasonable prospects of success.