Latest Cases

Criminal law – Appeal. The Privy Council quashed the defendant's convictions in New Zealand for a rape and murder and held that the combination of the defendant's frequently contradictory and often implausible confessions and the diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) led to only one possible conclusion, namely that reliance on his confessions gave rise to a risk of a miscarriage of justice 

Immigration – Removal. The claimant sought to withdraw his application for a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visa, but the defendant Secretary of State refused it and decided to remove him from the United Kingdom. He was granted permission to seek judicial review solely on the ground that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully and irrationally by failing to grant an in-country appeal. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant's precedent fact point was res judicata. Further, the case did not fall within the narrow band of circumstances in which the court would interfere with the out of country appeal process. 

Company – Derivative action. The claimant brought a derivative action on behalf of the third defendant company. The Chancery Division considered an application by the claimants under s 261(1) of the Companies Act 2006 to continue the derivative action. It held that, on the evidence, that all the factors in the case pointed in favour of granting the permission sought. 

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. 

Shipping – Cargo. The claimants brought proceedings against the defendant carrier, contending that cargoes of coffee had become partly spoiled by water during their carriage from Columbia to Germany. The Mercantile Court held that, on the evidence, the claimants would succeed. The carrier had not made good its contention that no lining with paper or card could have prevented the damage, and had not established that it had adopted a sound system to prevent the spoiling of the cargo. 

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. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision to grant outline planning permission to the interested party for a residual waste facility and associated development. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that, on its true construction, the existing use of the existing developed land had been safeguarded. Further, the officer's report had sufficiently raised and addressed the harm the proposed development would cause, and the assessment that there would be no significant effects on the Green Belt had not been unreasoned, and was not inexplicable and patently wrong. 

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. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The proceedings concerned two appeals in which both first appellants had applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant. They had relied on funds from third parties to demonstrate the requisite access to funds. Both applications were refused for failure to comply with the requirements regarding the provision of documentation in para 41-SD(a)(i) of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing both appeals, ruled as to the proper interpretation and application of paras 41-SD(a)(i) and 41-SD(b) of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules.