Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The appellant national of the United States (PG) appealed to the FTT against the refusal of her applications for entry clearance and for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) allowed her appeal and the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the tribunal) set aside the FTT's decision and determined that PG's claim under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights could not succeed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing PG's appeal, declined to uphold the tribunal's decision. However, the FTT had, inter alia, made a material error of law when it had purported to identify the relevant test. It followed that the FTT's decision was not sustainable and the case would be remitted to the tribunal to reconsider the decision as to art 8 of the Convention. 

Criminal law – Murder. The deceased was killed as a consequence of a fight involving both defendants, C and P. It was the prosecution case that it had been a joint enterprise attack. The expert pathologist was unable to rule out the possibility that the first blow, administered by C, had caused the fatal brain injury. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, quashed the defendants' convictions for murder, in circumstances where P had been some distance away when the first blow was struck and a reasonable jury, properly directed could not have been sure that there had already been in place the necessary joint enterprise and the necessary intent. 

Judgment – Default judgment. The claimant, a Russian citizen, brought a claim against the defendant Kazakh company for breach of share purchase agreements. Judgment in default of acknowledgement of service and a judgment on an assessment of damages were entered. The defendant applied to set aside the judgments. The Commercial Court, dismissing the application, held that the establishment by the defendant of a realistic defence was not sufficient to justify setting aside the judgments notwithstanding that the sums involved were large. 

Immigration – European Economic Area nationals. A Pakistan national had married a German national and moved to the United Kingdom where they had two children who were German nationals. They divorced and the wife sought to regularise her position in the UK. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decided that she had a right of residence, both under art 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union applying the principles in Zambrano, and under art 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 (on freedom of movement for workers within the Community). It also allowed her appeal under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Secretary of state appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union as the answers to the issues raised were not acte clair. 

Practice – Striking out. The appellants appealed against the striking out of their proceedings for infringement of their rights under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, by virtue of the employment tribunal's recusal. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the immunity for a 'judicial act', under s 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998, was not limited to acts or decisions which could be the subject of appeal or judicial review. On that basis, the judge had been correct to strike out the appellants' claims, notwithstanding the error in holding that s 2(5) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 had applied. 

Damages – Measure of damages. The issue for determination was the extent to which the credit hire charge incurred by the claimant was recoverable from the defendant insurer. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge faced with a range of hire rates should identify the rate or rates for hire, in the claimant's geographical area, of the type of car actually hired on credit hire terms. The analysis had to strip out the irrecoverable costs. If a single rate, then that rate was likely to be a reasonable approximation for the basic hire rate. If a range of rates, then a reasonable estimate might be obtained by identifying the lowest reasonable rate quoted by a mainstream supplier or a local reputable supplier. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The offender was convicted of, among other things, indecent assault contrary to s 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (count 1). The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that it appeared that the sentencing judge had been overly influenced by the sentencing regime at the time the offending had been committed. The sentence in respect of count one was increased from four and-a-half years' imprisonment to eight and-a-half years' imprisonment. 

Children and young persons – Parental orders. The applicants sought parental orders in respect of children that had been conceived through a surrogacy arrangement in India in circumstances where the applications had been made outside the six month time limit and where there was a possibility that the surrogate had been married at the relevant time. The surrogate could not be found, although she had previously provided an affidavit consenting to the applicants becoming parents. The Family Court determined that, despite the delay, there were benefits in allowing the applications to proceed. Further, the surrogate's husband had not consented to the arrangement and the surrogate's consent was not required on the ground that she could not be found. All other criteria of s 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 having been met, the parental orders would be made. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Clinical negligence. The Claimant's estate received £1,000 in general damages following her death caused by septic arthritis (MRSA). The Defendant denied liability. Settlement was agreed without an admission of liability in the sum of £5,000. 

Unfair dismissal – Burden of proof. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's claims that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed for a reason connected with a transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employee's appeal only on the ground that the tribunal had failed to apply the relevant principle regarding the burden of proof in unfair dismissal cases. The case would be remitted to the same tribunal to reconsider the employee's claims.