Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The appellant Indian national had been refused leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 4 (General) Student, having previously studied in the UK with such leave. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) found that the confirmation of acceptance for studies (CAS) issued by the education institute and other evidence had not provided confirmation of 'academic progress' required by the Immigration Rules. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that, on the evidence, and bearing in mind the expectation that the CAS should not be assigned unless the new course had represented academic progress, the institute had not confirmed that its course of further study had complemented the appellant's previous course at the same level. 

Guarantee – Enforcement. The business of the claimant, Gordon Ramsay (R) was run, in large part, by H. H operated a machine that automatically signed R's signature onto a guarantee. The issue arose as to whether R would be bound by the guarantee. The Chancery Division held that when H had committed R to the guarantee, he had been acting within the wide general authority conferred on him by R. 

Data protection – Processing of information. The claimant had put forward his own name twice unsuccessfully to the defendant House of Lords appointment commission. The claimant brought seeking disclosure of two unsolicited letters sent to the defendant under the Data Protection Act 1998. His claim was opposed by the defendant. The Queen's Bench Division held that the information was exempted information and dismissed the claim. 

Civil procedure – Jurisdiction – Recovery of information. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion by petitioners who had asked the court to order disclosure of the identity of two users of the respondent's website who, it was averred, posted defamatory matter about them and their guest house, the court concluded that the Lord Ordinary was correct to sustain the respondents' plea of no jurisdiction, as the Scottish courts did not have jurisdiction over the respondents, a company incorporated under the law of Massachusetts who had their principal place of business there, and the clause in the respondents' terms and conditions prorogating the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts courts applied to the application. 

Medical Practitioner – Negligence. The claimant had attended at the accident and emergency department of one of the defendant NHS Trust's hospital. The doctor had inserted a cannula in her left arm, even though she had told him that there was a risk of oedema due to a recent procedure that she had undergone. The cannula site became infected, the claimant suffered a fairly serious case of oedema and was left with a permanent disability in her left arm. The county court judge dismissed her claim for clinical negligence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had failed to take to its logical conclusion his finding that the cannula had been inserted without the claimant's consent. That had been a breach of the doctor's duty of care. The matter would be remitted to resolve issues of causation. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Grundig Multimedia AG against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), confirming rejection of the applicant's application for registration of the word sign 'Pianissimo' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by easyjet Airline Co. Ltd (easyjet), established in Luton (United Kingdom) for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 2727 final rejecting the complaint lodged by easyjet against Luchthaven Schiphol NV in relation to alleged anti-competitive conduct in the airport services market. 

Criminal law – Proceeds of crime. The judge and the Court of Appeal of Jamaica refused the appellant Assets Recovery Agency's application for a customer information order (CIO), pursuant to ss 119 to 125 of the Jamaican Proceeds of Crime Act 2007. The Privy Council, in dismissing the Agency's appeal, held that the Court of Appeal's refusal of the CIO had been correct because the flaws in the application had meant that the statutory conditions for making the order had not been made out. However, it had been in error in its ruling on three points of general principle and the correct approach was set out. 

Damages – Personal injury. The deceased died following a helicopter crash whilst employed on a project by the defendant employer. The deceased's wife brought a claim against the employer. The Queen's Bench Division held that the scope of the defendant employer's duty extended to the charter of the helicopter and the flight, that the duty had been breached and that breach had caused the deceased's death. 

Negligence – Causation. The proceedings concerned the trial of the issues of breach of duty and causation in the claimant's clinical negligence claim against the defendant NHS Trust. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that, although breach of duty had been established, the claimant had failed in his case on causation.