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. 

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. 

Minor – Abduction. The mother of a young child (S) applied for his summary return from the United Kingdom to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). According to the mother, the father had wrongfully removed S from the UAE. The father maintained that there had been a planned, consensual relocation. The Family Division held that, on the evidence, S had left the UAE as the result, not of a consensual relocation plan, but because the father had decided to take S away from the mother and also from the country of his habitual residence. It was overwhelmingly in S's welfare interests to return with his mother to the UAE as swiftly as could be arranged. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant had entered into contracts with clients that were subject to English law and jurisdiction. The clients issued proceedings against the claimant in Germany, resulting in the claimant paying damages. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant German lawyers in England, alleging that they had induced the claimants to bring proceedings in Germany in breach of their contracts. The defendant was unsuccessful in its challenge against the jurisdiction of the English court. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal, as the place where the claimant had suffered the damage which formed the basis of its claim was Germany. 

Social security – Benefit. The appellant had been granted refugee status and sought recovery of a back-payment of income support to the time of her asylum application. She was refused back-payment and her appeals through the tribunal system were dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, interpreting s 12 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 in the light of art 23 of the Geneva Convention, there was no entitlement to such back-payments and there was no express or implied obligation to make a lump sum payment representing the difference between the earlier asylum support payments or benefits in kind and mainstream benefits pursuant to art 28 of Council Directive (EC) 2004/83. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The appellant consultant ophthalmologist appealed against the Fitness to Practise Panel of the respondent General Medical Council's finding of serious misconduct and its decision to suspend his registration for six months. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that it had not been open to infer that the appellant had deliberately withheld from his employer sums of money which he had received from private patients and which he had known he should have paid, and had been deliberately dishonest. It was inappropriate to remit the case because a future panel would reach the same erroneous conclusion. 

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. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The claimant accountants were convicted of fraud in relation to their operation of Ponzi schemes. Confiscation orders had been made against them. The claimants applied for certificates of inadequacy, pursuant to s 83 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the applications, held that there was no merit in either application. On the evidence, the first claimant had hidden assets of at least £382,691.36 and the second claimant had hidden assets of at least £2,046,910.58. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant brought a claim for damages for breach of contract against the defendant. The defendant applied on the day of the trial to strike out the claimant's statement of case and for summary judgment. The Queen's Bench Division held that despite the applications being made on the day of the trial, the only proper step was to strike out the claimant's statement of case and grant summary judgment. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimants sought permission to seek judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions that they should be removed to Hungary for the purpose of processing their respective asylum applications, under Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in refusing the applications, held that evidentially, neither claimants' case was arguably sufficient to displace the strong presumption, which was one of the pillars of the Regulation regime, that Hungary would comply with its relevant international obligations, in particular, under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.