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. 

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. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Energeticky a průmyslovy holding a.s. (EPH) and another company for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1999 final relating to a proceeding under art 23(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) 1/2003 (on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in arts 81 and 82 EC). 

Mortgage – Action by mortgagee for possession. The Chancery Division, in a claim by the assignee of a mortgage for possession of a property and a money judgment against the defendant, rejected both the defendant's defence and counterclaim and held that the claimant had proved its claim. 

Estoppel – Issue estoppel. The claimant had issued proceedings in the employment tribunal against the defendant employer. He had brought his claim out of time and the tribunal declined to exercise its jurisdiction to hear the claim. Subsequently, the claimant issued proceedings in negligence and breach of contract in the High Court. His claim was struck out on the ground of issue estoppel. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal. It held that there was no justification for the principle applying in circumstances where there had been no actual adjudication of any issue and no action by a party which would justify him as having consented, either expressly or by implication, to having conceded the issue by choosing not to have the matter formally determined. The fact that there had been a substantive hearing of the issue of jurisdiction had not been enough to have brought the principle of issue estoppel into play. 

Construction contract – Arbitration. The claimant construction company brought proceedings, seeking to enforce an adjudication decision. The defendants submitted that the decision could not be enforced, as there had been no valid contract between the parties. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the evidence, there had been a valid contract and so the decision could be enforced. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for her extradition to Poland to serve an activated suspended sentence for supplying narcotics, possession of narcotics, misuse of an identity card issued to another and stealing, because of her failure to contact probation service after changing her address. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had erred in finding that the appellant had become a fugitive by failing to inform probation of her change of address. Further, to return the appellant to would not be a proportionate interference with the private life the appellant had legitimately established in the United Kingdom without being a fugitive. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Nigerian nationals sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions refusing them leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been required to give separate consideration to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in her decisions and that there had been no adequate assessments made outside the Immigration Rules, resulting in unlawful decisions. The errors were not immaterial, as it could not be concluded with any degree of confidence that the claimants' claims would necessarily fail. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The appeal concerned the allocation of a surplus on the winding up of a plan established to provide pensions and other benefits for employees of certain companies in a group. The Privy Council, in allowing the appeal, held that the courts below had erred in holding that a clause of the trust deed had been invalid. Further, the matter would be remitted for reconsideration of whether the first appellant could legitimately refuse agreement to a proposed uplift for inflation out of the surplus.