Latest Cases

Company – Winding up. In the course of winding up proceedings concerning two land banking companies, an order was made that advertisement of the winding up petitions made against the companies should be restrained. In the present hearing, the Chancery Division considered whether that order should be continued. The court held that the interest of the customers who had purchased land from the companies should prevail, and that the companies' application to continue the order would be dismissed. 

Nationality – British nationality. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision not to grant her or her dependents naturalisation as British citizens. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, given the claimant's deception, the Secretary of State had been entitled to conclude that she had not discharged the burden upon her to demonstrate that she was a person of good character. In the light of that conclusion, the Secretary of State had had no option but to refuse the claim for naturalisation. 

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. 

Negligence – Damage. The claimants were chemical process operators who claimed damages for loss of earnings from the defendant employer. They accepted that the claims depended on establishing the presence of actionable injury on standard tortious principles. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claims holding that when analysed, the claim was one for pure economic loss. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant failed to apply in a timely manner for a jury trial in relation to certain charges. A Master in a case management decision in the exercise of his discretion refused the claimant's application. The Queen's Bench Division upheld the decision and found that there were good practical reasons for the limit. 

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). 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to Poland to face trial for obtaining a bank loan by deception. He relied on art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the impact of extradition on his partner and child. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the appellant's extradition would be a disproportionate interference with family life and the welfare of his child. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The appellant had applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant, supported by a letter setting out a Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS), issued by a college. However, before the date of the Secretary of State's decision on the application, the college withdrew the CAS as a result of an administrative error. The appellant's application was refused. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the general public law duty to act fairly had not imposed an obligation on the Secretary of State, when she had seen that the CAS letter on which the appellant's application for leave to remain was based had been withdrawn, to adjourn any decision on the application to give the appellant notice of the problem and an opportunity to rectify it. 

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.