Latest Cases

Crown – Proceedings against. The proceedings concerned claims in tort and applications for judicial review against the defendant Ministries and Secretaries of State involving mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanistan by United States forces following transfer of custody from the hands of British forces. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claims in tort were not barred by reason of the doctrines of state immunity or foreign act of state. The claims in tort would be barred by the doctrine of Crown act of state if the defendants were able to show that the arrest and detention by British forces had been authorised pursuant to a lawful policy. The applications for judicial review were given permission to proceed where there was no reason to refuse such permission. 

Immigration – Asylum. The appellant was a national of Belarus, whose principal claim to remain in the United Kingdom was based on his allegation that he had a well-founded fear of persecution if he were to be returned to Belarus, on account of his political opinions and activities there some 15 years ago. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (FTT) dismissed his claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that there had been no error of law in the way in which the FTT had approached its task or in its reasoning or conclusions. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. In 2009, CS, the patient, was formally diagnosed as having Alzheimer's disease, he executed a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for property and financial affairs, and an LPA for health and welfare in which he appointed his son, M, to be the sole attorney. M delegated his powers to his mother, who it was found, following investigation by the Office of Public Guardian was living off CS's income. Various applications came before the court. The Court of Protection revoked the LPA for property and financial affairs and appointed a panel member and M to act jointly as CS's deputies for property and affairs. 

Pension – Pension scheme. In the course of the administration of a bank, which ran a pension scheme, the claimant trustee sought a declaration that a debt owed to the pension scheme was assignable. The Chancery Division considered whether the trustee of a pension scheme was able to assign the debt owed to the pension scheme which was created by s 75 of the Pensions Act 1995. It held that, among other things, a declaration to that effect would be made. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The proceedings concerned an application by the claimant building contractor for an injunction to restrain the defendant property developers from proceeding with a reference to adjudication. The claimant submitted that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to decide the dispute, because that dispute was the same or substantially the same as that which had already been decided in a previous adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court, in dismissing the application, held that, if the first dispute raised more than one issue or, as in the present case, raised issues that had been put in the alternative, a decision by an adjudicator in the first adjudication only on a party's primary case did not prevent a second adjudicator from determining the alternative case. 

Copyright – Infringement. The claimant and the defendant were both companies engaged in the fashion design business. The claimant had supplied the defendant with a sample of fabric. It brought proceedings, alleging that the defendant had breached its copyright and community design by amending the design of the claimant's sample fabric to create a design for dresses, which the claimant had supplied to Marks & Spencer (M&S). The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, in dismissing the claims, held that, on the evidence, the defendant had not copied the claimant's fabric when the fabric supplied to M&S had been created. 

Prison – Prisoners. The claimant was serving a life sentence for offences including two murders committed with the presence of children in the vicinity. He challenged the imposition of safeguarding children measures. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that it was not a proper decision, on the facts of the case, to find that the level of risk that the claimant presented to children was such that it had been appropriate or necessary to impose safeguarding children measures. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Eritrean national contended she was a former relevant child and, as such, the defendant local authority owed duties to her, even though she had never been a looked after child on account of her age having been assessed as being over 18. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the claimant had not been a former relevant child, even if she had been 16 when she had entered the United Kingdom, as she had not, in fact, been looked after by the authority. However, her age was relevant, as the discretion to provide her with accommodation might arise if the authority had acted unlawfully in failing to accommodate her, if she had been 16 when she had arrived in the UK. 

Employment – Contract. The judge found that the defendant Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (the FCO) withdrawal of the claimant as British High Commissioner in Belize had been a breach of his contract and the common law duty of care. He awarded damages, including for his depressive illness. The FCO appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed the challenge to the judge's findings of breach of contract and causation. However, it found that the judge had erred in finding that it had been reasonably foreseeable that the FCO's conduct might lead him to develop psychiatric illness. 

Will – Validity. The children of a deceased sought to challenge her capacity to make a will, which initially favoured the deceased's former partner. The Chancery Division, in upholding the will, held that the deceased had had capacity to make it and had understood and approved its terms.