Latest Cases

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Albanian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to certify his human rights claim as clearly unfounded and to detain him pending removal. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, despite interference with the claimant's family life, the Secretary of State's decision to certify that the claimant's human rights claim had been clearly unfounded had been rational and lawful. Further, it had been lawful for detention to be maintained, in particular, when family proceedings had been contemplated. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo issued proceedings, alleging that his detention had been unlawful. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the risk of re offending and absconding had justified the claimant's detention whilst the Secretary of State had awaited judgment in R (on the application of P) (DRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another case ([2013] All ER (D) 181 (Dec)). Further, on new evidence, there had been a realistic prospect of removing the claimant after the Secretary of State had abandoned her appeal against that decision. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The claimant company, which manufactured and repaired ice cream vans, brought proceedings against the defendants, who had made their own ice cream vans. The Patents Court held that, on the evidence, the defendants had all infringed certain registered designs and the design rights in the designs. The second and third defendants had infringed a trade mark, and the third defendant was jointly liable for the first and second defendants' infringements of the registered design, the design rights in the designs and the trade mark. 

Employment law – Unfair dismissal. Court of Session: In a case in which the Employment Tribunal (ET) upheld a complaint of unfair dismissal by a prison officer who was dismissed for gross misconduct and the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employer's appeal, the court, refusing a further appeal by the employee, held that in concluding that the circumstances of the appellant and another prison officer, who was not dismissed, were truly parallel and that to draw a distinction between them as regards sanction was therefore irrational, the ET had erred in law by substituting its own decision instead of asking itself whether the decision to dismiss was one which could have been taken by a reasonable employer. 

Police – Complaint against police. The proceedings concerned two linked applications for judicial review of the lawfulness of guidance issued by the College of Policing as part of its 'Armed Policing Authorised Professional Practice' manual (2014). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, addressing the applications as a substantive first instance hearing, held that, while there was a risk of collusion prior to an investigation under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights between police officers who had either used force or witnessed its use, in the light of the safeguards that the guidance provided, and bearing in mind that the adequacy of an investigation for the purposes of art 2 would have to be assessed by reference to all the features of that investigation, the risk of breach of art 2 to which the guidance itself gave rise was not an unacceptable risk such as justified a finding that the guidance itself was unlawful. 

Child – Protection. The claimant convicted sex offender sought judicial review of the legality of arrangements made by the police for the retention and disclosure of information and data relating to him. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were engaged, but the schemes were in accordance with the law because they were not arbitrary or disproportionate and could be justified. Further, the schemes gave full effect to X (South Yorkshire) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2012] All ER (D) 232 (Oct)). 

Telecommunications – Regulatory bodies. The proceedings concerned the legality of the imposition of fines upon premium rate services (PRS) providers. An adjudication tribunal had found that the first defendant provider had breached a code of practice, approved under the Communications Act 2003 and had imposed a fine and administrative charges. The claimant enforcement authority applied for summary judgment to recover the fine and charges from the first defendant. The Chancery Division, in granting the application, held that OFCOM had lawfully delegated to the claimant all powers of enforcement of the code and that, applying the law to the facts, the first defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim. 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to face trial for thefts dating from 2002. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that there had been a culpable delay of four years due to failure to make inquiries of the Home Office as to the appellant's contact details. Given that delay coupled with the eight year passage of time since the alleged offences, the appellant had established that to order his return would be a disproportionate and unjustified interference with his rights and those of his family under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Injunction – Interim injunction. The proceedings concerned an alleged unlawful means conspiracy between the defendants to steal business from the claimant companies. The claimants made an application for urgent injunctions on notice against a number of the defendants. The Queen's Bench Division made rulings with regard to the undertakings and springboard relief arising from them.