Latest Cases

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. 

Contract – Loan contract – Repayment of loan. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuer sought payment of £215,367, which was the total sum repayable in respect of loans he made to a football club and which he said was repayable on demand in the absence of any contrary agreement, the court was satisfied on the evidence taken as a whole that agreement was reached that the sums the pursuer loaned would not be repaid until the club was able to repay them. 

Minor – Guardian. The father of a child had cared for her, with support, for six months prior to a final hearing in public law proceedings. A special guardianship order was made in favour of a non-relative in respect of a child, the judge having ruled out the father as a realistic option to care for the child. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, set the order aside due to a number of procedural defects in the matter, including a failure to carry out a comparative welfare analysis of the two realistic options. 

Bankruptcy – Sequestration. Sheriff Court: In sequestration proceedings in which the respondent argued that sequestration should not be granted because the existence of a standard security in the petitioners' favour over subjects owned by her brother-in-law met the terms of s 12(3A) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 in that she had thereby given or shown that there was 'sufficient security for the payment of' the debt in question, the court rejected that argument, concluded that the sheriff had erred in dismissing petition and refusing sequestration, and awarded sequestration. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee, who was Danish and had his home in Switzerland, was an internationally mobile employee, employed on a contract of employment with a Bermudian company. The role was based in Switzerland. The employee spent less than half of his working time in the UK. The employee was dismissed for making a public interest disclosure in England. He was so informed by the second respondent company. The employment tribunal (the tribunal), having regard to the Rome Convention, held that the employment was not sufficiently closely connected with the UK and there was no jurisdiction to hear the employee's claim for unfair dismissal. The employee appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the appeal, held, among other things, that, on the facts, the tribunal's decision had not been perverse as to sufficiency of connection and jurisdiction. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Disclosure against parties to proceedings. In the course of a tendering dispute, the claimant, which was an unsuccessful tenderer, made applications for disclosure and for the future conduct of the case. The Technology and Construction Court allowed the application in part and made findings regarding the extent of disclosure permitted. 

Housing – Local authority. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local housing authority's decision, approving designation of four areas in its boundary as being subject to selective licensing. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it was clear from the evidence that there had been very substantial consideration of the options of selective licensing and voluntary accreditation. There had been no perversity and/or irrationality in the authority having chosen a mandatory scheme over a voluntary one. 

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a suspended sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed on the 90 year old offender in respect of historical sexual offences had been unduly lenient. The court imposed a total sentence of five years' imprisonment to be served immediately. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 55 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax), in the version in force until 1 January 2010, should be interpreted as not applying where the recipient of the supplies of services had been identified for VAT purposes both in the member state in which the services had physically been carried out and in another member state, and later only in the other member state, and the tangible movable property to which those services related had been dispatched or transported out of the member state in which the services had been physically carried out not following the supplies of services but following the later sale of the goods. 

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.