Latest Cases

Immigration – Education. The claimant college sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse its application for highly trusted sponsor status and to maintain that decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had not acted irrationally in her approach to the refusal rate of student visa applications, the enrolment rate or failure to report on unrolled students. 

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. The claimant, a disabled man, sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's consultation on its proposal to cut its adult social care budget. He contended that the authority had failed to provide adequate information on whether there were alternatives to the authority's proposal. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, in the present case, fairness had not required consultation upon arguable yet discarded alternative options. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Care orders were made in relation to two children, who were to live with their mother and have limited supervised contact with their father. The father appealed against the judge's order, challenging, among other things, the judge's treatment of the evidence of a clinical psychologist, G, which it was said to have been allowed to assume disproportionate importance. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the father's appeal. It held that, among other things, the judge had produced a most thorough judgment, drawing together all the strands of the evidence. From it, it was quite clear that her decision had not been based upon an unquestioning acceptance of G's evidence, whether as to physical risk or as to emotional considerations. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for her extradition to Lithuania to serve an activated suspended sentence of three years' imprisonment for eight fraud offences with others. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that extradition would be a disproportionate interference with the rights of the appellant and her son under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, given the uncontradicted evidence as to the son's unresolved trauma arising from witnessing the abuse of his mother in the past and the likely detrimental consequences if he was moved from her care, and the appellant's current pregnancy. 

Child – Care. There were before the court two applications from the local authority for a care order in relation to a little boy, A, who was born on 11 January 2014, and for a placement order. The father put himself forward as a sole carer of A. The Family Court held that the local authority's case was a tottering edifice built on inadequate foundations and flowing from that the local authority was to willing to believe the worst of the father. Both applications were dismissed. 

Practice – Appeal. In County Court proceedings, the defendant was unsuccessful. He appealed seeking to admit fresh evidence on appeal. He had previously tried to adduce that evidence prior to judgement being given in the county Court but the judge had refused the application. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division allowed the application on the basis that the case was not one of those typical cases in which the evidence had come to light after the proceedings had been concluded indicating that the trial court had been deliberately misled. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by Zitro IP Sàrl, for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Zitro IP Sàrl and Gamepoint BV regarding the application by the latter company for registration of the word sign 'SPIN BINGO' as a Community trade mark. 

Costs – Order for costs. In a previous case, the claimants lost and they asserted that there should be no order for costs because the defendant had refused to engage in ADR. In response, the defendant sought an award of costs against the claimants on an indemnity basis. The Queen's Bench Division noted the defendant's failure to engage in ADR but held that such a shortcoming was not sufficient to disentitle it from claiming any costs. 

Environment – Waste. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against his conviction for depositing controlled waste without a permit, contrary to s 33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, in circumstances where the judge's direction in summing as to the meaning of 'waste' had been defective. 

Human rights – Right to life. The Administrative Court, held that the Lord Chancellor's Exceptional Funding Guidance (Inquests) was inadequate, incorporated an error of law and provided a materially misleading impression of what the law was. That was by virtue of the fact that there was no recognition that there was a category of case where the investigative duty under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights arose irrespective of the existence of an arguable breach by the state. Those errors could lead to erroneous decision being taken by caseworkers.