Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national requested that his case be dealt with as a legacy case. The United Kingdom Border Agency indicated that he might qualify and requested information, including as to compassionate circumstances. Absent further response, the claimant issued judicial review proceedings and the Secretary of State responded that he did not fall to be considered under the legacy program. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had addressed the legacy point, but did not purport to address any other issue relating, for instance, to compassionate grounds justifying leave to remain. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The proceedings concerned the mother's appeal against a decision about her contact with her children and the imposition of a restriction order, under s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989, on her making further applications in relation to the children for two years. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge's omission to set out his conclusions about the contact centre material in his judgment was fatal to his decision. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employer appealed against an employment tribunal's finding that the employee was a disabled person during two periods of absences. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that there was no evidence justifying the tribunal's finding in respect of the first period of absence. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Directive (EEC) 85/374 (on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products), as amended, should be interpreted as not precluding national legislation — such as that at issue in the main proceedings, establishing a special liability system for the purposes of art 13 of that directive — under which, in consequence of an amendment to that legislation made after the directive had been notified to the member state concerned, the consumer had the right to require the manufacturer of the medicinal product to provide him with information on the adverse effects of that product. 

Professional misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant pharmacist appealed against the decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel (the FPP) of the respondent General Pharmaceutical Council to remove his name from the register of pharmacists. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the FPP had not erred in finding that the appellant had not been subjected to unacceptable, inappropriate or undue pressure and had lacked insight into his actions. It concluded that there was no error in the imposition of the sanction. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of outline planning permission for the development of up to 400 dwellings and full planning permission for the change of use from agricultural land to use as a suitable alternative natural greenspace. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that, reading the officer report as a whole and in the context of oral advice given to members, it could not be said that the members had been significantly misled by the advice given to them. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Chancery Division sanctions schemes of arrangement in respect of the Apcoa group, a leading pan European car park operator. 

Warranty – Breach. The claimant company, THG, bought shares in a company controlled by the defendants. It commenced proceedings, seeking damages for breach of warranty. The defendants counterclaimed, seeking damages for breach of warranty regarding THG's accounts and damages for deceit. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, the claimant's warranty claim succeeded, the defendants' warranty claim also succeeded, but the defendants' claim in deceit would fail. 

Child – Abduction. The mother and father of two children had divorced and the mother had taken the children from Hungary, where they had lived, to the United Kingdom. The father made an application, under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980, for the children's summary return to Hungary. The Family Division held that there had been a wrongful removal of the children and that the mother had not succeeded in establishing any of her defences. Accordingly, the children would be returned to Hungary. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision refusing him leave to remain in the United Kingdom and refusing to treat his representations as a fresh claim. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had failed to treat her failure to grant the claimant discretionary leave to remain as any kind of disadvantage and to consider the relevance of the claimant having been removed on the basis of her own misstatement of fact. Although her decision would be quashed, she would not be ordered to facilitate the claimant's return to the UK.