Latest Cases

Immigration – Appeal. The appellant Nigerian citizen's appeal against deportation was allowed by the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT). The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) allowed the Secretary of State's appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held, inter alia, that, in the circumstances, the FTT presiding judge had erred in exercising his casting vote. Further, the FTT had not identified, as it should have done, the features of PF's case that had amounted to compelling reasons or the exceptional circumstances justifying the success of his appeal, and its consideration of and emphasis on PF's rehabilitation had been mistaken. 

Sentence – Length of sentence. The offender was sentenced to a total of three and-a-half years' imprisonment for eight sexual offences committed against a 12 year old boy over a five or six month period. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, in the circumstances, the sentence had been unduly lenient and substituted a sentence of five-and-a-half years' imprisonment. 

Dentist – Professional misconduct. The appellant oral surgeon appealed against the Professional Conduct Committee (the Committee) of the respondent General Dental Council's finding of dishonesty and its decision to erase him from the register. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the Committee had been wrong to conclude that the appellant had perjured himself at a coroner's inquest and quashed aspects of its findings. The sanction of erasure would be quashed and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel to consider afresh the question of sanction in the light of the findings of the Committee which remained. 

Commons – Registration. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant commons registration authority's decision, refusing their application to register rights of common. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the reason the claimants' application had failed had been that they could not establish that they had acquired rights of common when they had applied to register them. Accordingly, the authority's decision had been correct in law. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for a mixed use development. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been a material misdirection within the officer's report as to the five-year housing plan, as applying what had been seen as the realistic housing figure did not produce a five-year supply conclusion proximate to that contained within the officer's report. However, the discretion to refuse to quash the planning permission would be exercised, as the authority would have reached the same decision absent the error. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Commercial Court considered two applications for committal regarding contempts of court allegedly made by G and J in the course of proceedings. The court held that G, who had made admissions, would be sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, which would be suspended, provided that he repaid certain monies. It held that the contempts alleged on the part of J were proved, and that a sentence of 20 months imprisonment would be made in her case. 

Environment – Site of special scientific interest. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Welsh Ministers' decision to adopt a plan for a new stretch of the M4 motorway across an area comprising several sites of special scientific interest and a special area of conservation. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Welsh Government had not failed to consider reasonable alternatives. Further, it had not failed to take reasonable steps to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora and fauna. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Jamaican national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing him leave to remain with his partner. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was no error of law in the Secretary of State's decision, refusing him leave to remain. However, even if there had been, relief would be declined in the light of the Secretary of State's subsequent letter, setting out her reasons for continuing to refuse the claimant leave to remain after further consideration of his case. 

Intestacy – Distribution of intestate's estate. A dispute arose between two brothers as to whether a property purchased by their father, but registered in the name of the defendant, was held on trust for the father's estate entirely. The Chancery Division held that the property had been held on trust for the father's estate entirely, and that, on the evidence, the claimant was not guilty of laches. 

Shipping – Charterparty. In a shipping dispute concerning a contract made subject to the GAFTA78 terms, the GAFTA board of appeal made an award which involved findings relating to cl 17 of GAFTA78. The Commercial Court considered three questions about the interpretation of cl 17 of GAFTA78. As a result of its findings, the award would be remitted for further consideration by the appeal board.