Latest Cases

Arbitration – Arbitrator. A dispute arose between the parties concerning the shipping of steel from China to Jebel Ali. An arbitrator appointed by the parties held that the applicable law under the contract had been English law and found for the respondent. The claimant challenged jurisdiction and, hence, the validity of the award. In allowing the application, the Commercial Court held that the respondent had failed to displace the prima facie conclusion that the arbitration under the contract was subject to Hong Kong, rather than English curial law. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse his application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of his long residence and art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application in part, held that the Secretary of State had failed to consider material considerations. Accordingly, the decision was unlawful insofar as it concerned the assessment of the claimant's case under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules and under the guidance outside the Immigration Rules. 

Civil procedure – Settlement of action – Ostensible authority of agent. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal in an action in which the pursuer's solicitor had accepted a tender in settlement of the action contrary to his express instructions to refuse it, the court held that a party to litigation was entitled to rely on the ostensible authority of the solicitor acting for the opposite party to compromise an action, the pursuer's submissions that his solicitor had acted fraudulently had no substance, and his right to a fair and public hearing of his claim had not been infringed. 

Local government – Council tax. Three local authorities appealed against the decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England (the tribunal), granting the respondent registered providers of social housing with charitable status an exemption from council tax, under Class B of art 3 of the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992, SI 1992/558. The Administrative Court held that the tribunal had erred in holding that there was a presumption that two of the conditions for the grant of the exemption were satisfied, with a consequential reversal of the normal burden of proof. Only the first appeal would be allowed, as no sufficient evidence had been provided to satisfy the fourth condition. 

Immigration – Removal. The six appellants challenged the respondent Secretary of State's removal decisions as being repugnant to their rights guaranteed by arts 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, relying on their serious medical conditions. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing five of the appeals, held that the appellants could not bring themselves within the exception contained in D v United Kingdom ((1997) 2 BHRC 273) and their plight, however grave, could not be alleviated by recourse to art 3 of the Convention. Further, three appellants' arguments concerning art 8 of the Convention were excluded and two appellants had no basis for those claims. 

Judicial review – Act of Scottish Parliament. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition challenging the lawfulness of provisions in an Act of the Scottish Parliament establishing the framework for a scheme creating a new public service for children and young persons in Scotland, the court held that Pt 4 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 did not contravene rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, EU law on data protection or fundamental common law rights; it was unnecessary to make a reference to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling; the subject matter of the legislation was within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament; and the first to fourth petitioners did not have standing to bring the proceedings. 

Divorce – Financial provision. There was before the court an application by the husband on Form A regarding the variation of a financial order made by the German court following divorce proceedings between him and his wife. The Family Division held that the Form A and issued on behalf of the husband had not validly seised that court with competent power to make an application for a financial order: specifically an order varying a periodical payments order. There was only one route laid down by European Council Regulation (EC) 4/2009, via Central Authorities. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The defendant company agreed to purchase shares in a Bulgarian company and its subsidiaries from the claimant company. The agreement provided that the relevant group of companies were to allow seller and its professional advisers reasonable access to relevant books, records and documents. The claimant's request for access to those documents was refused. The claimant brought an action against the defendant for specific performance. The Chancery Division, in granting the order, held that the claimant had a clear contractual entitlement to access to the documents and to copying them. The case was an appropriate case for specific performance and a suitable case for summary judgment. 

Family proceedings – Care proceedings. R's parents were arrested on suspicion of causing injury, following his admission to hospital with a fracture of his right ankle. No explanation was provided. R was placed in foster care. Care proceedings were commenced by the local authority a fact finding hearing took place. The Family Court found that R had been injured when his right leg was yanked and twisted by one of his parents, both of whom had jointly decided not to tell the truth. 

Environment – Protection. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the appellant association, which was concerned with the protection of the environment of the Shetland Islands, against the decision by the Inner House of the Court of Session to uphold the decision by the respondent Scottish Ministers to grant consent to developers for the construction and operation of a wind farm. The Court held, amongst other things, that, contrary to the decision of the Lord Ordinary, the duty of the respondents in considering such development proposals was not to conduct a full review of their functions under Directive (EC) 2009/147 (on the conservation of wild birds), but to take that directive into account as one of a number of material considerations in reaching a lawful decision whether to grant consent under the Electricity Act 1989.