Latest Cases

Immigration – Workers. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to revoke its Tier 2 sponsor licence and to maintain that revocation. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been justified in concluding that the claimant's response to her request for information addressing identified issues had been deficient and why the presaged revocation of licence would go ahead. Further, her decision had not been irrational, and given the litany and seriousness of the claimant's various breaches, immediate termination had been obvious and axiomatic. 

Shipping – Charterparty. The proceedings concerned a voyage charterparty made on the BEEPEEVOY 3 form. Clause 17 of the charterparty made provision for a laycan period. Clause 24 of the charterparty gave the charterers, after any load or discharge port or place had been nominated, a liberty to vary such port or place. While the vessel was on its way to the first load port, the charterers cancelled the charterparty. A dispute arose as to whether the charterers had a right to cancel. The tribunal found for the owners. The Commercial Court dismissed the charterers' appeal, and held that the tribunal had not erred in reaching the conclusion that it had done. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the action brought by easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd (easyGroup) against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between Tui AG and easyGroup concerning the application by easyGroup to register a figurative sign depicting the words 'easyAir-tours' as a Community trade mark. 

Contract – Terms. The claimant, a major European executive air charter operation, had provided aircraft management services to the defendant. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of an aircraft management and charter agreement between the claimant and the defendant, the claimant was entitled to judgment for the amount of charter incentive payments to which it had claimed to be entitled. The defendant was entitled to set off some, but not all, of the sums claimed from outstanding invoices in respect of management fees and operating costs. 

Criminal law – Costs. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant court's recovery of defence costs order (RDCO) that he pay £483,554.11 towards the costs of his legal aid. He submitted that the judge had not addressed his submission that he should not have had to pay for the costs associated a charge of which he had not been convicted, but which had been ordered to lie on the file. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that the judge had simply not addressed the issue of whether it would be unreasonable to make an RDCO in respect of the costs of the count ordered to lie on the file. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners (the Revenue) had presented a petition for a sum in excess of £7.7m in respect of a company for unpaid VAT. A provisional liquidator was appointed by the court to take possession of and protect the company's assets. The Revenue brought committal proceedings against the defendants, contending that three payments made out of the company's funds to a company in Dubai subsequent to the appointment of the provisional liquidator were made in contempt of court. The defendants admitted contempt. The Chancery Division, applying settled principles to the facts, sentenced them each to six months' imprisonment. 

Extradition – Extradition hearing. The appellant appealed against the judge's decision that his case should be sent to the Secretary of State for her decision whether to order his extradition to India. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to conclude that there had been a prima facie case and to have rejected the appellant's abuse of process argument. Further, there was no basis for interfering with the judge's conclusion that there would be no risk of breach of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and extradition would not be disproportionate with respect to art 8 of the Convention. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Ferring BV against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Martet (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Ferring BV and Kora Corp. Ltd (Kora) regarding the application by Kora for registration of the word sign 'Koragel' as a Community word mark. 

Freedom of information – Request. Two appeals were heard together as they concerned common issues regarding s 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In the second appeal, issues arose regarding requests for information made under reg 12 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, SI 2004/331. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, gave guidance on the meaning of 'vexatious' and 'manifestly unreasonable' and whether past requests could be taken into account in considering whether a fresh request was vexatious. 

Legal aid – Grant. The appellant had appeared before the county court without representation and was committed to prison for contempt of court for breaches of injunctions. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held, among other things, that the relevant legislation meant that a qualifying individual should receive public funding for legal representation on committal applications in the county court and that, there was a power reposed in the Director of the Legal Aid Agency to grant such representation. In the circumstances, the committal order and the factual findings upon which it was based would be quashed.