Latest Cases

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that neither reg 17A of the Children's Home Regulations 2001, SI 2001/3967, and/or para 3.19 of the National Minimum Standards for Children's Homes (the NMS) prevented the court from authorising any deprivation of liberty of the patient, P, in a registered children's home if a court concluded that such a deprivation of liberty pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary, proportionate and in P's best interests in the present case. 

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. 

Criminal law – Fraud. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the prosecution's application for leave to appeal a terminating ruling pursuant to s 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The judge had upheld the defendants' submission of no case to answer in respect of a count of fraud, contrary to s 1(4) of the Fraud Act 2006. The court held that the prosecution had been entitled to suggest that the defendants, who were accused of acting as unlicensed gangmasters, had occupied a position where they had been expected to safeguard or not to act against the interests of the workers pursuant to s 4 of the 2006 Act. 

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 Secretary of State sent the claimant applicant for judicial review a draft consent order, agreeing to reconsider her decision refusing him leave to remain and making an unappealable removal decision within three months, if the claimant withdrew the proceedings and paid her costs. At the hearing, she sought the dismissal of the judicial review proceedings and further costs. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) approved a modified draft consent order, reducing to four weeks the reconsideration period and making no order as to costs inter partes. It further promulgated general guidance on recurring unsatisfactory practices and trends in the tribunal. 

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 76(2) of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71, as amended, had to be interpreted as authorising the member state of employment to provide in its legislation for suspension by the competent institution of entitlement to family benefits when no application had been made for family benefits in the member state of residence. In such circumstances, if the member state of employment provided for such suspension of entitlement to family benefits in its national legislation, the competent institution was bound to apply that suspension in accordance with art 76(2) of that Regulation, provided that the conditions for the application of that legislation were met, and had no discretion in that regard. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following an earlier judgment in which the Commercial Court had upheld the claimant companies' claim for business Interruption losses and interest, the court held that, although the claimants had been the successful parties, they would be denied any costs from a period of 21 days after a CPR pt 36 offer to settle had been made on behalf of the defendant. Further, the defendant was entitled to its costs on a standard basis from that date. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Yemeni national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to grant her leave to remain, but prohibiting her from having recourse to public funds. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in imposing the condition, as it had been made pursuant to a rule that had been unlawful, as it had not been laid before Parliament. Further, the Secretary of State had failed to comply with the public sector equality duty and had given inadequate reasons with respect to the claimant's disability. 

European Union – Agricultural products and foodstuffs. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) 2073/2005 (on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs), as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 1086/2011 (Regulation 2073/2005), read together with Annex I, Chapter I, Row 1.28 of the latter regulation. The request had been made in proceedings between Ms Reindl and the Innsbruck District Administration (Austria) concerning a fine imposed on Ms Reindl for failing to comply with the limit value for Salmonella Typhimurium set out in Annex I, Chapter I, Row l.28 of Regulation 2073/2005. 

European Union – Access to information. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 54 of Directive (EC) 2004/39 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on markets in financial instruments), as amending certain directives and repealing one other. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr and Mrs Altmann and others and the Federal Office for the Supervision of Financial Services, concerning the latter's decision to refuse access to certain documents and information regarding Phoenix Kapitaldienst GmbH Gesellschaft für die Durchführung und Vermittlung von Vermögensanlagen.