Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In claims by many hundreds of Iraqi civilians against the defendant Ministry of Defence for damages for their allegedly unlawful detention and ill-treatment by British armed forces, the preliminary issue was whether in respect of the claims in tort the law of Iraq provided for joint liability and/or vicarious liability of the defendant for acts alleged to have been done by members of the US forces. The Queen's Bench Division gave a ruling based on the evidence submitted. 

Criminal law – Trial of children and young persons. The second defendant, B, aged 16, was charged with child sexual offences. The claimant Director of Public Prosecution sought judicial review of the first defendant youth court's decision to retain jurisdiction on the basis there was power to commit B for sentence, including under s 3B(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that the youth court had failed to appreciate that the amendment to s 3B of the 2000 Act had not been in force at the time it had made its decision. Further guidance was given on the resulting statutory structure. 

Employment – Dismissal. The employee was employed as a nurse, and was absent from work over an extended period, due to stress. Her employment was terminated, and she brought a claim before the employment tribunal (the tribunal). The tribunal dismissed the employee's claims for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. The employee appealed, contending that, among other things, the tribunal had failed to consider the likelihood of her condition reoccurring. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that that matter should have been raised before the tribunal, once the omission had initially been realised, and that an appeal was unnecessary. The matter was referred back to the tribunal. The EAT gave guidance on the correct procedure in such circumstances and on its own jurisdiction to entertain appeals from 'decisions' of employment tribunals. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. XZ completed a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for property and financial affairs. The Office of Public Guardian (OPG) refused to register the LPA. XZ came before the Court of Protection seeking to require the PG to register the document. The Court of Protection allowed the application on the basis that pursuant to s 23(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. XZ's LPA did not contain any provisions which would be ineffective or would prevent the instrument from operating as a valid power of attorney. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The proceedings concerned linked appeals regarding the lawfulness of a Home Office guidance document, 'Requests for removal decisions'. The context was that overstayers or illegal entrants whose applications for leave to remain had been refused without a right of appeal could request the respondent Secretary of State to make a removal decision to generate a right of appeal. The guidance informed immigration officers how to respond to such requests. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the guidance was not required to be laid before Parliament under s 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, because it did not set out criteria which were or might be determinative of an application for leave to enter or remain. Further, the guidance was perfectly clear. 

Warrant – Search warrant. The first defendant granted the second defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner four warrants, under s 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, concerning the claimants' office and homes. The claimants sought judicial review. The Divisional Court held that it had not been feasible to provide greater specificity and it had been unrealistic to expect the officers to have taken away any relevant material for a computer or other storage device in paper form or on memory sticks. Further, it was permissible to order the seizure of electronic storage devices or their contents in the circumstances without resort to other statutory provisions. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Timab Industries Ltd and the holding company of its parent group against the adoption of a decision of the European Commission to the effect that those companies had infringed art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and art 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by participating in a single and continuous infringement consisting in the sharing of a large part of the European market for animal feed phosphates. 

Practice – Amendment. The claimant was the owner of a development in Birmingham. It brought claims against the defendant contractor in respect of alleged defects in the development. The claimant applied to amend its particulars of claim. The Technology and Construction Court, in dismissing the application, considered the correct approach to amendments to particulars of claim. 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal brought by the appellant trade union against a decision of the Court of Session, Inner House, that the employees in question who were on limited term contracts (LTCs) which had not been renewed had not been dismissed 'as redundant' for the purposes of the consultation requirement under s 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992. The Court decided that, contrary to what had been decided by the Inner House, the coming to an end of an LTC was 'for a reason not related to the individual concerned' for the purposes of the definition of redundancy in s 195(1) of the Act. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellant Iranian national made an unsuccessful claim for asylum. The First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) dismissed his appeal. The appellant contended, inter alia, that the FTT had erred in failing to take into account, in the proportionality assessment under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the respondent Secretary of State's policy on removals to Iran. Further, if he was not granted discretionary leave to remain, he would be left in limbo. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that, having considered the policy, even if the appellant's argument had been advanced before the FTT, there would have been no proper basis for a finding that the refusal of leave would have put him into a state of limbo. Consideration of whether he would have been in a state of limbo would have drawn the FTT into impermissible speculation about the future.