Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse them leave to remain as Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrants. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the evidential requirements in para 41-SD(c)(iii) of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules could not be said to go beyond that which the Secretary of State might legitimately require for the purpose of showing that a business was genuine, and that the person conducting it and seeking entrepreneur status on the basis of having done so, was genuinely linked to that business. Accordingly, the claimant's challenge to the rationality of the requirement had to fail. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Eritrean national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to detain him on the basis that it was inconsistent with her policy and given pending challenges to removal to Malta. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the policy did not require the Secretary of State to release a person from detention if her attention was drawn to extant challenges or on the issue of judicial review proceedings, if they could be resolved promptly. Accordingly, the time taken to absorb the implications of the lodging of the application for judicial review had not been unlawful. 

Value Added Tax – Supply of goods or services. Two sets of proceedings had concerned the repayment of VAT on management services provided to closed-end investment trusts companies, and a number of rulings had been made by the Chancery Division in respect of changes in the legislation that had affected the trusts' entitlement to reclaim VAT from the Revenue and Customs Commissioners. Both the trusts and the Revenue appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeals and, in so doing, clarified the scope of s 80(7) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. 

Contract – Formation. In a contractual dispute, a preliminary issue arose as to whether the terms and conditions in two contracts had been properly incorporated into the relevant purchase orders. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the evidence, the terms and conditions had not been properly incorporated. 

Anonymity – Court proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, although each application would have to be considered individually, a limited derogation from the principle of open justice would normally be necessary in relation to hearings to approve a settlement of a claim made by a child or protected party, to enable the court to do justice to the claimant and his family, by ensuring respect for their family and private lives. An anonymity order seemed to provide a reasonable degree of protection both against an unwarranted invasion of privacy and an interference with the right to family life, and against such other risks as there might be, whether of dissipation of assets or otherwise. Unless satisfied, after hearing argument, that it was not necessary to do so, the judge should make an anonymity order for the protection of the claimant and their family. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Fetim BV for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Fetim BV and Solid Floor Ltd, established in London, United Kingdom, concerning the application by Fetim BV for registration of a figurative sign depicting 'Solidfloor The professional's choice' as a Community trade mark. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The appellant Indian national appealed against the refusal of entry clearance. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the causal connection between the historic injustice, namely, the effect of the policy removing the unrestricted right of entry for British overseas citizens from 1968 to 2003, and the appellant's circumstances had been established, notwithstanding the lacuna in the evidence. The courts should not be unduly rigorous in the application of the causation test, given that its significance was to redress the historic injustice. Accordingly, it was declared that the appellant was entitled to entry clearance. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division considered a claim for clinical negligence arising from the admittedly inappropriate treatment of a patient with an unstable fracture of the spine which was initially misdiagnosed as stable. The claimant proved causation on the balance of probabilities. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision that it had no jurisdiction to grant consent for works, as they were not 'underground works' and fell outside the scope of s 3(2) of the London Squares Preservation Act 1931. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that, on the proper construction of s 3(2) of the Act, none of the works were underground works or buildings. 

European Union – Employment. In the course of proceedings between a Finnish trade union in the electricity sector and a company established in Poland, regarding pay claims arising out of employment relationships, the Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning, amongst other things, the interpretation of arts 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and art 3 of Directive (EC) 96/71 (concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services).