Latest Cases

Immigration – Asylum seeker. Following the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), that the defendant Secretary of State had breached her duty under s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, in not considering the best interests of the first claimant child as a primary consideration (see [2015] All ER (D) 243 (Apr)), the claimants applied for their return to the United Kingdom. The tribunal, in allowing the application, held that, considering the very unusual circumstances in the round, the Secretary of State should be ordered to take all reasonable steps to ensure the return of the claimants to the UK. 

Cohabitation – Unmarried couple. The parties' relationship broke down and the defendant excluded the claimant from a residential property. He denied that she had any claim to any of the three properties in which they had spent time together. In each case, the defendant had bought the property in his sole name. He also denied that the claimant had a half share in a business. The claimant brought proceedings, claiming that there was an agreement or understanding that she should have a half share in the properties. Her claim was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal on its facts. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The claimant builder carried out some remedial work for the defendant after a fire at the defendant's house. The claimant brought a claim against the defendant for the alleged underpayment. The defendant filed a counterclaim, alleging bad workmanship. He failed to comply with an unless order to serve and file with the court a re-pleaded counterclaim by a certain date in March 2015 and before the trial in July and the counterclaim was struck out. The defendant applied for relief from sanctions. The Technology and Construction Court ruled that the application for relief from sanctions had to fail where there had been a serious and substantial breach of the order. However, the defendant was permitted to amend his defence to plead the material in the new draft of the counterclaim as a defence to the claimant's claim in respect of the alleged underpayment. 

County court – Appeal. The claimant's application for permission to appeal against a decision of a district judge was dismissed as the circuit judge decided that the claimant's failure to comply with his earlier directions was not trivial and no reasonable excuse for it had been put forward. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. It held, inter alia, that the circuit judge had not purported to deal with the application on the merits; he had simply disposed of it peremptorily by way of a sanction. Further, whatever might be said about the merits of the judge's decision, it was not one that engaged the court's residual jurisdiction. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant sought judicial review of his immigration detention since March 2012. The defendant Secretary of State accepted that she had failed to review the claimant's continued detention between March and July 2013, but contended that the claimant would still have been lawfully detained. The Administrative Court held that, given the claimant's failure to co-operate in establishing his identity, his detention was presently lawful, in accordance with the principles in R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Singh ([1984] 1 All ER 983) and his release would not be ordered. Given the Secretary of State's concession, he was only entitled to nominal damages. 

Insolvency – Petition. The respondent company was a Greek state-owned airline that had gone into administration. The appellants were trustees of its pension scheme. The trustees presented a petition in England to wind-up the company on the ground that it was unable to meet its liability. The Chancery Division granted the petition, but it was overruled by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the trustees' appeal. On the proper construction of 'economic activity' in the definition of 'establishment' in art 2(h) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 (on insolvency proceedings), the company could not, at the date of the petition, be said to have had an 'establishment' in the United Kingdom. 

Damages – Measure of damages. In a personal injury case in which liability and causation were admitted but damages were in issue, the claimant applied for an interim payment in order to purchase a property to adapt for her own living arrangements. The Queen's Bench division allowed a payment under stage one of the judgment of Eeles v Cobham Hire Services Ltd [2009] All ER (D) 144 (Mar) reasoning that such a decision would not create an unlevel playing field as between the parties. 

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court considered a claim for infringement of European Patent (UK) No 2 292 219 directed to the use of rivastigmine for use in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease wherein the rivastigmine was administered by a transdermal therapeutic system. The court held that the patent was invalid on the ground of added matter and since the claimed invention lacked an inventive step over a previous patent. 

Industrial relations – Collective bargaining. The claimant independent trade union was recognised by the defendant airline as entitled to conduct collective bargaining in respect of the pilots' 'pay, hours and holidays'. The claim concerned the proper construction and scope of the term 'pay, hours and holidays' in the specified method for collective bargaining. The Queen's Bench Division held that only those aspects of rostering that related to the core terms of employment (pay, hours and holidays) and were apt for incorporation as contractual terms fell within the scope of the claimant's recognition. Further, the defendant was required by the specific method to discuss pay with the claimant before varying the employees' contractual terms. The defendant had done so and had complied with its obligations in that regard. 

Sex establishment – Control. The central issue in the proceedings was whether it was legitimate, under domestic and/or European Union law, for the appellant licensing authority to charge refundable sums for the grant or renewal of a sex establishment licence. The Supreme Court held that it was legitimate under domestic law and, under EU law, where the sum was charged on the application having been successful. However, it referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union as to whether and when, under EU law, it was legitimate to do so at the time of the application, on the basis that it was refundable if the application was unsuccessful.