Latest Cases

Natural Justice – Duty to act fairly. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to close a school and merge it with another. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority had failed to: (i) set out in the consultation document the alternatives considered and the reasons why they had been discounted; (ii) address the requirement that standards in the new school would be, at least, equivalent to those at the school; (iii) provide a community impact assessment with the consultation document; and (iv) provide the Regional Assembly members with the relevant documents. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The proceedings concerned an appeal by the father against the making of care and placement orders in relation to his daughter. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the father's appeal, held that the recorder had engaged with the essence of the case and his judgment had contained the essential ingredients necessary for there to be a proper determination of the issues. 

Immigration – Deportation. The respondent Secretary of State had served a deportation order on the appellant Pakistani national. During the appellant's submissions in the present appeal, it was said that there had been a fourth child born to him and his wife since the original determination was made. No assessment by any tribunal by reference to any of the Immigration Rules had dealt with that matter. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State accepted, and the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ordered, that the matter should be re-determined by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). 

Medical practitioner – Appeal against determination of disciplinary committee. The appellant Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care appealed against a decision of the Conduct and Competence Committee of the first respondent Nursing and Midwifery Council's (the NMC) decision to impose a conditions of practice order on the second respondent registered general nurse for nine months. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the decision had been informed by a serious procedural irregularity, due to the NMC's failure to adequately reflect the seriousness of the second respondent's conduct in the charges. The matter would be remitted with a direction to the NMC that it had to amend the charges. 

Immigration – Practice. Following the transfer of proceedings from the Administrative Court to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), the present case concerned the determination of preliminary issues concerning the defendant Secretary of State's failure to serve an acknowledgement of service (AOS). The tribunal held that, in judicial review cases transferred from the Administrative Court to the tribunal, the applicable procedural regime was that contained in the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, SI 2008/2698. Further, the discretionary sanction enshrined in r 29(3) of the Rules extended to cases where the AOS had been lodged with the tribunal, but had not been served on the claimant. 

Immigration – Education. The claimant educational institution sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's revocation of its Tier 4 licence. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been failings in the management and administration of the claimant which had meant that specific and general duties to comply with the grant of highly trusted sponsor status had not always been met. The Secretary of State had been entitled, on that basis, to reach the decisions she had. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant time-served foreign national offender issued judicial review proceedings, seeking damages to reflect his unlawful detention in prison, rather than in an immigration removal centre. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it had been unlawful for the Secretary of State to operate a blanket policy, providing criteria for detention in prison, which had ignored the circumstances of any particular case. However, R (on the application of Krasniqi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2011] All ER (D) 145 (Dec)) precluded a finding of breach of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Immigration – Deportation. The issue in the judicial review proceedings was whether the claimant European Economic Area citizens were entitled to apply in country for revocation of the deportation orders made against them and to appeal in country against the refusals to revoke the deportation orders. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the applications, held that the Secretary of State had been entitled to refuse to consider in-country revocation applications and appeals. Further, on the proper construction of the legislation, the Secretary of State had made no immigration decisions in the claimants' cases. 

European Union – Conflict of laws. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding that art 3(b) of Regulation (EC) 4/2009 should be interpreted as precluding national legislation which established a centralisation of judicial jurisdiction in matters relating to cross-border maintenance obligations in favour of a first instance court which had jurisdiction for the seat of the appeal court, except where that rule helped to achieve the objective of a proper administration of justice and protected the interests of maintenance creditors while promoting the effective recovery of such claims, which was, however, a matter for the referring courts to verify. 

Civil procedure – Breach of interdict – Preliminary applications and objections. Court of Session: In proceedings by the Law Society of Scotland for breach of interdict by a solicitor who was interdicted from holding himself out as entitled by law to practice as a solicitor and from pretending to be a solicitor, the court, refusing several preliminary applications and objections in a motion by the respondent, held that the Law Society was not in contempt of court, the petition was not irrelevant, the proceedings were not raised in bad faith, and that the diet of proof should not be discharged because of the respondent's lack of representation.