Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Following care and placement proceedings, the President of the Family Division identified instances of poor practice within the proceedings on the part of the local authority and the appellant father's solicitors with a view to ensuring that, so far as possible, they did not recur. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The Family Division held the habitual residence of a four and-a-half year old child was in the United Kingdom, in circumstances where the child had been born in Morocco to a Moroccan father and American mother and had spent time in both the UK and Morocco but where the mother had for much of her adult life been integrated into the UK and was herself found to be habitually resident in the UK. 

Arbitration – Adjudication. The parties contracted for the defendant construction company to carry out work on the claimants' home. A dispute arose and it was agreed that it would be determined by adjudication. The adjudicator made a decision in which, among other things, the claimants were to commence proceedings for the matters still in dispute. The defendant applied to have the proceedings struck out. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the evidence, it was not open to the claimants to have certain matters re-decided, and that the claim would be set aside and the proceedings stayed. 

Income tax – Penalty. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) allowed the applications by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners pursuant to para 50 of Sch 36 to the Finance Act 2008 for imposition of a penalty on a taxpayer for failure to comply with information notices issued by the Revenue. The tribunal decided that the penalty under that provision would be nearly 100% of the income tax due and 100% of the inheritance tax due. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to grant of leave to remain for 30 months, but to impose a condition prohibiting them from having recourse to public funds (the condition). The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had not irrationally failed to grant discretionary leave to remain. Further, with respect to the condition, she had not unlawfully failed to consider the exercise of her discretion, failed to comply with s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 or breached the claimants' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Mauritian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing her application to stay as a spouse. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had fallen into error in failing to comply with the requirement to say that exceptional circumstances had or had not been considered and had been rejected, even if she had considered that the case was so weak as not to be arguable. No finding would be made as to the inevitably of outcome and the Secretary of State's decision would be quashed. 

Family proceedings – Costs. The Supreme Court held that none of the exceptions to the general approach applicable to awards of costs in children's cases as set out in Re T (Children) ([2012] 4 All ER 1137) applied in the present case. Accordingly, an order for costs made in the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, against the respondent local authority would be set aside. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's grant of leave to remain on the condition that she have no recourse to public funds. The Secretary of State subsequently agreed to remove the condition, such that there was no live issue directly between the parties. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that it was not appropriate to proceed to hear the application for judicial review substantively, as its resolution would be unlikely to be of any real assistance to a significant number of cases, if at all. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants alleged that the defendant, B, had appropriated money whilst in public office in Djibouti. They obtained freezing injunctions, among other things, against him. In the course of obtaining the injunctions, a solicitor working for the claimants misled the court. B applied to have the injunctions dismissed. The Commercial Court held that, in the circumstances, the freezing injunctions would be dismissed, although a proprietary injunction would remain. 

Income tax – Return. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the application by a taxpayer for judicial review of a decision by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners not to allow his claim for repayment of overpaid tax on the basis that the taxpayer's return had been received after the expiry of the four-year time limit imposed by s 34(1) of the Taxes Management Act 1970. The tribunal decided that, in line with existing authority, the time limit in that sub-section had no application to a self-assessment made by a taxpayer. Accordingly, the Revenue was ordered to process the taxpayer's tax return including the self-assessment in respect of the relevant year.