Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of his application for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that the submission that Rodriguez (Flexibility Policy) ([2013] UKUT 42 (IAC)) applied at the date of the decision was totally without merit. Further, the claimant had not submitted a specified document, but a document which had not included the mandatory information and the Secretary of State had been under no obligation to make an enquiry of the claimant as to why he had not done so. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for the installation of photovoltaic arrays mounted on frames covering 22.1ha of land neighbouring his Grade II listed building. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority had failed to: (i) consult English Heritage; (ii) discharge the duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings; (iii) consult the claimant in breach of his legitimate expectation arising from its statement of community involvement; and (v) conclude an environmental impact assessment was required. Accordingly, the planning permission would be quashed. 

Police – Complaints against police. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner issued judicial review proceedings, seeking to quash an Independent Police Complaints Commission's (the IPCC) decision to reopen the investigation into D's allegation he had been strangled during his arrest, on the basis it was functus officio. D sought to quash the conclusions found in the IPCC's original report. The Divisional Court held that the IPCC had power to seek further information in respect of a report it considered defective. Further, errors of reasoning in the report rendered it irrational. Accordingly, the Commissioner's claim would be dismissed, but D's claim would be allowed. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant former Greek judge appealed against orders for her extradition to Greece. The Divisional Court, in dismissing two outstanding grounds of appeal, held that, on the basis of reliable assurances from the judicial authority, there were not substantial grounds for concluding that there was a real risk that the appellant's rights under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be infringed. Further, the present case was not one of the rare ones where art 8 of the Convention would be a bar to extradition, even though the appellant had a short sentence left to serve and had been subject to periods of curfew. 

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 5(2)(b) and 6 of Directive (EC) 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society). The request had been made in proceedings between Copydan Båndkopi and Nokia Danmark A/S concerning the payment of the levy intended to finance the fair compensation payable under the exception to the reproduction right provided for in art 5(2)(b) of that directive. 

Contract – Breach. The claimant companies brought proceedings against the defendant, a former employee of the first claimant, seeking damages for breach of contract and database rights, delivery up of confidential information and injunctive relief. The Mercantile Court held that the defendant had not been constructively dismissed, and had acted in breach of contract and in breach of confidence. He had further breached his fiduciary duties. An award of damages was made against him in the sum of £290,009. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Croatia to serve a sentence of four years' imprisonment for attempted murder committed in 1994. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal, having ignored the fresh evidence which it was sought to adduce, held that, on the facts found by the judge and the issues raised at the extradition hearing, it would be oppressive to extradite the appellant by reason of the passage of time. Accordingly, it was not necessary to consider the application to adduce fresh evidence. 

Practice – Preliminary point of law. An arbitral tribunal had found in favour of the defendants that the claimant had breached its obligation to deliver goods, under the terms of a contract, which was governed by the Laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran, with the seat of the arbitration in London. The claimant challenged the award on the grounds of jurisdiction and serious irregularity. The defendants applied for certain matters to be determined as preliminary issues. The Commercial Court held that it was just and convenient, on case management grounds, to order a trial of the suggested preliminary issues, save for one issue, which had to go to trial. 

European Union – Companies. The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Court gave an advisory opinion to the Reykjavík District Court following a request by that court concerning the interpretation of art 30(1) of Directive (EC) 2001/24 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions) in proceedings between Landsbanki Islands hf. and Merrill Lynch International Ltd. 

Costs – Order for costs. SC commenced proceedings against H, in respect of sums he alleged he was owed for building work. H counterclaimed. In the course of proceedings, H brought a claim against KC, SC's father. He later sought to discontinue the claim against KC, and a dispute arose as to how the costs of the action against KC should be made. The Technology and Construction Court made rulings as to the attribution of costs.