Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing him indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, whether a requirement amounted to a request for evidence or to the imposition of a criterion was context-sensitive. In the context of the present case, a request for formal documentation of the claimant's asserted work history fell clearly on the 'evidence' side of the line and he could not complain that the Secretary of State had not been satisfied that he had fulfilled the relevant criteria. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The claimant sought judicial review of decisions by the first two defendants, supported by the third defendant, that civil contemnors committed to prison were not entitled to have time spent on remand deducted from their sentence by the prison. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claim. The part of the claimant's case that was based purely on the domestic law, in particular, s 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and s 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, was rejected. The claimant's challenge under arts 5 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights was also rejected. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee brought a claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal had been correct in not re-opening, at the remedy stage, the issue of contributory conduct which had been determined at an earlier hearing. However, the tribunal had been wrong in failing to consider the question of half-pay sick absence when assessing unfair dismissal or disability discrimination loss of earnings. The case was remitted to the tribunal. 

Sterilisation – Mentally handicapped person. The proceedings concerned DD, a 36-year-old woman with autistic spectrum disorder and mild to borderline leaning disability, who had six children all being raised by permanent substitute carers. The Court of Protection held that she lacked capacity to litigate, and to make the critical decision about contraception and sterilisation. Having weighed the relevant considerations, it held that laparoscopic sterilisation was in DD's best interests and authorised the applicants to undertake that procedure. It further permitted forcible entry into DD's home, and the withholding of the date of the procedure from her and her partner. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The proceedings concerned a child who was habitually resident in the United Kingdom, but who was found to have been wrongly retained in Poland. The mother applied to the court for the father and paternal grandmother's committal for breach of orders of the court requiring the child's return and for the hearing to proceed despite their absence at the hearing. The Family Division held that the application should proceed in the absence of the father and grandmother in respect of the father alone, in view of the potential prejudice to the mother of any delay in the application. On the facts, the father had breached the orders. The determination of penalty for those breaches and the application concerning the grandmother were adjourned. 

European Union – State aids. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Aer Lingus Ltd for annulment of a decision by the European Commission that the application by Ireland of a lower national rate of air travel tax (ATT) for a certain period applicable to all flights operated by certain aircrafts constituted state aid and was incompatible with the internal market (the contested decision). Consequently, art 4 of that decision, read in the light of recital 70 of that decision would be annulled, in so far as it ordered the recovery of the aid from the airlines which had operated flights subject to the ATT at the lower rate during the period concerned. 

European Union – Employment. The present request for a preliminary ruling concerned the interpretation of art 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Council Directive (EC) 1999/70 (concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP). The request had been made in proceedings between Ms Poclava and her employer concerning Ms Poclava's dismissal. The Court of Justice of the European Union decided that the employment contract at issue was not a fixed-term contract that fell within the scope of Directive 1999/70. Accordingly, the Court did not have jurisdiction to answer the questions put by the referring court. 

European Union – State aid. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Ryanair Ltd for annulment of a decision by the European Commission that the application by Ireland of a lower national rate of air travel tax (ATT) for a certain period applicable to all flights operated by certain aircrafts constituted state aid and was incompatible with the internal market (the contested decision). Consequently, art 4 of that decision, read in the light of recital 70 of that decision would be annulled, in so far as it ordered the recovery of the aid from the airlines which had operated flights subject to the ATT at the lower rate during the period concerned. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Turkiye Garanti Bankasi AS (Turkiye) for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Turkiye and Card & Finance Consulting GmbH (Card) in respect of the application by Card for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark. 

Statute – Construction. The Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill was within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales (the Welsh Assembly). The court held that, on the true construction of the relevant legislation, the Bill fell outside the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly, in that it did not relate to any of the subjects listed in para 9 of Pt 1 of Sch 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006.