Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. The patient, BN executed a lasting power of attorney (LPA) for property and financial affairs, and an LPA for health and welfare, in which she appointed her daughter, SH, and her granddaughter, GN, jointly and severally to be her attorneys. About four months later, BN's other daughter, CN, applied to the court for an order that the LPAs be revoked and a panel deputy appointed because the attorneys were unsuitable to be the donor's attorneys. BN and her attorneys, SH and GN, objected to the application. The court of protection found, applying established principles, that BN had not lacked capacity to revoke the LPAs and therefore it had no jurisdiction. 

Family proceedings – Evidence. The appellant, GR, a 14-year-old girl, appealed against an order refusing her permission to give oral evidence in care proceedings relating to herself and her younger sister. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that, in all the circumstances and on the facts of the case, a proper application of the test in Re W (Children) (Abuse: Oral Evidence)([2010] 2 All ER 418) led unequivocally to granting GR permission to give oral evidence, subject to her continued desire to do 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. 

Confidential information – Disclosure. The Administrative Court had dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review of the decision of the defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners' then Permanent Secretary for Tax to disclose certain limited information relating to the claimants during an 'off the record' meeting with two journalists. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal. It held, inter alia, that, as to whether the Revenue had breached s 18 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, a factually correct disclosure not involving the private affairs of a taxpayer, and which had the effect of raising the total tax revenue or reducing the effect of tax avoidance schemes which the Revenue genuinely considered ineffective, was a disclosure the citizen would expect the Revenue to be free to make. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Indian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse her application for leave to remain as the spouse of a British citizen settled in the United Kingdom. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that the principle in Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2009] 1 All ER 363) did not apply and, absent a request, the Secretary of State had not been obliged to consider the claimant's application on the hypothetical alternative that it had been made from abroad. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Nissan Jidosha KK (Nissan) against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to a request by Nissan for renewal of the registration of a Community figurative mark depicting the initials 'CVTC' in respect of goods in Class 9 of the Nice Agreement. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that Directive (EC) 2004/35 should be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, which, in cases where it was impossible to identify the polluter of a plot of land or to have that person adopt remedial measures, did not permit the competent authority to require the owner of the land (who was not responsible for the pollution) to adopt preventive and remedial measures, that person being required merely to reimburse the costs relating to the measures undertaken by the competent authority within the limit of the market value of the site, determined after those measures had been carried out. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant, slipped on a wet pavement and hurt her leg/knee. She brought a claim for damages in negligence against the defendant, who was her General Practitioner, for negligent examination of the knee. It was said that there were two consequences flowing from the breach of duty and consequent delay in diagnosing this fracture. The first was increased knee pain and loss of mobility and the second was low back pain arising out of the fact that the claimant had to use a stick for walking. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claim and made an award based on appropriate guidelines. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant sought to appeal a refusal to allow an amendment of certain particulars of claim. The grounds of the appeal were that the master had failed to give adequate reasons for his decision such that neither the parties nor the court was in a position to ascertain why the master had reached the decision which he had done. It was contended that the court itself should consider afresh the issues which were before the master. The Queen's Bench Division held that in the circumstances, the decision of the master had neither been wrong nor unreasonable and an appeal had stood no reasonable prospect of success. 

Costs – Security for costs. The claimant company brought a claim for misrepresentation and conspiracy against the defendants. A judge ordered the claimant to provide security for costs in the form of written confirmation from its insurer that the level of cover in respect of adverse costs had been extended to specified amounts. The defendants, relying on CPR 25.13(2)(c), further applied for an order for security of their costs in the form of an irrevocable bond or a deed of indemnity from the claimant's insurer. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that there was no reason to believe that the claimant would be unable to pay the defendants' costs if ordered to do so. Accordingly, the jurisdictional threshold of CPR 25.13(2)(c) had not been crossed and there was no discretion to grant the order sought.