Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's failure to grant him leave as a Tier 4 (General) student migrant, after his appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) against a prior decision had been allowed. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State's decision to defer consideration of the claimant's application for 60 days had been an entirely reasonable response to the FTT's decision. Her further grant of 60 days' discretionary leave outside the Immigration Rules on an exceptional basis added weight to the view that the Secretary of State had acted reasonably. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant suffered a severe trauma to his knee and attended at the defendant Hospital for medical intervention. He underwent an operation and following the operation was unable to move his toes and foot. The claimant claimed damages in respect of the personal injury and loss which it was alleged was caused by the clinical negligence of the defendant NHS Trust. The Queen's Bench Division, following a testing of the claimant's evidence, allowed the claim. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant company's appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowing the claimant's appeal against the dismissal of her claim for age discrimination. Consideration was given to the legal basis on which a remedy should be available in circumstances where an act which was detrimental to a claimant was done by an employee who was innocent of any discriminatory motivation but who had been influenced by information supplied, or views expressed by another employee whose motivation was, or was said to have been, discriminatory. 

Sentence – Suspended sentence. The offender, aged 77, had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to ten counts of indecent assault, contrary to s 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, suspended. The offending had taken place during the late 1960s and early 70s, when the complainants were both under the age of 14. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the judge had made too great an allowance for the mitigating features and had paid insufficient attention to the current guidelines. The suspension was removed and the offender was ordered to serve an immediate custodial sentence of two years' imprisonment. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The Administrative Court held that, although a person the subject of a confiscation order was entitled to know the balance outstanding, that information had already been supplied to the defendant. The application was, in reality, an attempt to challenge the figure outstanding and to argue about the enforcement receiver's remuneration. Further, realised sums were not to be paid towards the confiscation order before paying the receiver's remuneration and, whilst it was likely to be appropriate to order the proper assessment of the receiver's remuneration, the present application was premature. 

Statement of claim – Amendment. The claimant entered into a loan agreement with the defendant banks (together the bank). Under the conditions of the loan, the claimant entered into an amortising base rate swap with the bank (the swap). The claimant brought proceedings, contending, among other things, that it had been mis-sold the swap. Only weeks before the trial, the claimant applied for permission to amend its particulars of claim. The Chancery Division ruled that the present case was one where the balance came down firmly in favour of refusing permission for the disputed amendments where the application had been made too late, the amendments were formulated with insufficient clarity and particularity, and where the bank would face real and substantial prejudice if the application were allowed. 

Patent – Practice. The claimant company, TT, was the proprietor of a patent for a ticketing system. It entered into a dispute with the defendant company, BB, as to whether BB needed to use its ticketing system and intimating patent infringement proceedings. BB sought pre-action disclosure of information from TT, including the prices of licensing its system to its various customers. TT resisted the application. The Patents Court held that the rules in CPR 31.16(3) were satisfied and that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion with regard to licences issued by TT in the transport sector. 

Bankruptcy – Appeal. The Chancery Division considered an appeal by the petitioning creditor, W, against findings of the Chief Registrar regarding a bankruptcy order and a statutory demand made against the respondent wife and husband respectively. In dismissing the appeal, the court held that, using the correct test, the wife's application to annul the bankruptcy order would be allowed and that the other issues raised by W required further examination at a full hearing. 

Contract – Warranty. The parties had contracted for the design and installation of offshore wind turbines. There was failure in the foundations and a dispute arose regarding who was liable for the cost of remedial works. The judge found that the claimant contractor had been in breach of a warranty that the foundation would have a 20 year service life, but that it was not in breach of other clauses as contended for by the defendant employers. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal, as there had been no such warranty. The defendants' cross-appeal was allowed, as the claimant had been in breach of a provision regarding testing of the designs. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing him leave to remain in the United Kingdom, based on his rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, he relied on letters of support from responsible figures within his local community. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that, had there been a full consideration of the material concerning art 8 of the Convention, the decision might not have been the same. Further, the Secretary of State's supplementary decision failed to deal with relevant factors raised in the letters.