Latest Cases

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Safa Nicu Sepahan Co., (Safa Nicu) for: (i) annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 503/2011 implementing Regulation (EU) 961/2010 (on restrictive measures against Iran) and Council Regulation (EU) 267/2012; and (ii) compensation for non-material damage. However, Safa Nicu's claim for compensation in respect of material damage was dismissed. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The claimant Israeli national was refused leave to re-enter the United Kingdom, detained and refused entry clearance on the basis that she had been employed in the UK in breach of a condition of her initial leave to enter. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application for judicial review, held that the decision finding that the claimant had taken employment had not been irrational or unlawful. Further, the claimant had had no legitimate expectation that her activities in the UK would be compatible with her leave, as she had not fully explained her activities. 

European Union – National legislation. The Court of Justice of the European union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 3(2) and 216 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, read in conjunction with art 5 of Directive (EC) 2001/77 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market), and the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation, as adapted by Decision 1/2000 of the EC-Switzerland Joint Committee. The request had been made in proceedings between Green Network SpA and the Autorità per l'energia elettrica e il gas concerning an administrative fine imposed by the latter on Green Network for its refusal to purchase green certificates in an amount corresponding to the quantity of electricity which that company had imported into Italy from Switzerland. 

Landlord and tenant – Possession. The appellants' applications to set aside an order for possession and to prevent or suspend execution of the subsequent warrant for possession were dismissed. The appellants applied, under CPR 52.17, to re-open the appeal from the order for possession and appealed against the order dismissing their application to prevent or suspend execution of the warrant for possession. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the application, held that the pre-conditions specified in CPR 52.17 had not been satisfied and dismissed the appeal. 

European Union – Public service contract. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Alfastar Benelux SA (Alfastar) for annulment of the decision of the European Council not to select the tender submitted by Alfastar response to the restricted call for tenders UCA 218/07, for the provision of technical maintenance and help desk and on-site intervention services for the PCs, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council and to award the contract to another tenderer. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division entered summary judgment for the defendant hospital in respect of data protection brought by the claimant. It also struck out a defamation claim and gave the defendant its costs in relation to certain abandoned claims of the claimant. 

Costs – Security for costs. The proceedings concerned an action for patent infringement in respect of barriers which were used to prevent unauthorised intrusion from pirates onto ocean going ships. The applicant (the defendant in the main proceedings) sought security for costs, pursuant to CPR 25(3)(2)(c), on the basis that the claimant would be unable to pay its costs if so ordered. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court (IPEC), in granting the application, held that the principles governing whether security for costs should be awarded were the same in the IPEC as in any other court. On the evidence, it was appropriate to make the order in the present case. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. As a preliminary issue in a libel action brought by a member of the Royal Family of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Queen's Bench Division determined the meaning of the words complained of. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The applicant for judicial review (J) had been assessed by the respondent local authority as being a child in need for the purposes of s 17 of the Children Act 1989. The family were fairground travellers and part of the Gypsy community. J was provided with nursery services as part of his child in need plan. The authority told the family that the services could not 'travel' with them. J's application for judicial review of that decision was successful. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the authority's appeal and held that, on a purposive construction of s 17 of the Act, a local authority had the power to provide services for a child in need who they had assessed, regardless of the circumstances which had led to that child being no longer physically present in the area of that local authority. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to face trial on two counts of obtaining for himself and assisting another to obtain a bank loan by false representation. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that oppression by reason of prejudicial delay was open to him because he was not a fugitive, and the extent of the unexplained delay was serious in the light of his age and family circumstances. Delay further made an appearance in the balance concerning art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which would not, of itself, have been sufficient.