Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Gambian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision that she had not met the requirements of para 284 of the Immigration Rules and that she had not qualified under Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no error as to para 284 of the Immigration Rules. Further, despite the Secretary of State's error in having assessed the matter by reference to Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules, when that provision had not applied to the claimant's application, no injustice had been caused. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The proceedings concerned the question of where an adult, SW, who lacked capacity, was habitually resident, for the purposes of determining whether the English court had jurisdiction to deal with applications under the Metal Capacity Act 2005. The Court of Protection held that the definition of 'habitual residence' under the Act should be the same as that applied in other family law instruments, including Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003, and SW had been habitually resident in England for purposes of the Act. 

Practice – Family proceedings. The wife had applied for a judgment summons due to the husband's failure to make payments under a maintenance order. The hearing of her application had been adjourned a number of times on the husband's application. The husband had again applied for an adjournment on the ground that he was not sufficiently well enough to attend and that it would be wrong, given the criminal nature of the proceedings, to continue in his absence. The Family Division dismissed the husband's application having paid regard to the history of the wife's application, and the insufficiency of the medical evidence that had been produced which had been vague and had not explained why attendance had not been possible. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (the FTT) making a further management order. It alleged that the FTT had had no jurisdiction to make the order under s 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the order was in respect of land outwith the leaseholders' premises, but which was properly 'in relation' to those premises. Accordingly, it was within the scope of s 24 of the Act and within the FTT's jurisdiction. 

Local authority – Land. The claimants challenged the defendant Secretary of State's decision to consent to the local authority's decision to appropriate their allotments. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there had been an established, objectively verifiable fact, that had existed at the time of decision, material to the decision, but not known to the Secretary of State as a result of a mistake for which the claimants had not been responsible. The decision had been based on a clear consideration that there had been no changes of materiality since the application had been made. Accordingly, the decision had not been in accordance with law. 

European Union – Public procurement. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by Computer Resources International (Luxembourg) SA for annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union to accept the tenders submitted by the consortium formed by the applicant and another company, concerning the provision of computer services for software development and maintenance, consultancy and assistance for different types of information technology, and to award the framework contracts to other tenderers. 

Extradition – European arrest warrant. The claimant sought permission to bring a claim for judicial review of a proposed decision by the government to give notice to the European Council that the United Kingdom wished to participate in the Council Framework Decision (JHA) 2002/584. The Divisional Court, in refusing permission, held that the claimant's contention that the government could not give such notice without first holding a referendum was not arguable and that the alleged promises that there would be a vote in Parliament before such notice were not capable of giving rise to an enforceable legitimate expectation. 

Police – Disclosure of information. The claimant doctor sought judicial review of the defendant Metropolitan Police Service's (the MPS) decision that unlawfully obtained material should be provided to the General Medical Council. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the MPS had erred by failing to carry out the careful balancing exercise of competing interests required by art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the fact that the material had been obtained unlawfully did not outweigh the legitimate aim served by its disclosure and the claimant's rights under art 8 of the Convention had not been violated. 

Damages – Assessment. The claimants brought a claim against the first defendant solicitors' firm. They were awarded judgment in default. The Mercantile Court made an assessment of damages relating to three properties as test cases. 

Habeas corpus – Grounds for writ of habeas corpus. The mother of two children had been found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to 28 days' imprisonment. The Administrative Court refused to grant a writ of habeas corpus and stated that, in the circumstances, habeas corpus was an entirely misconceived remedy, there was a right of appeal, the mother was represented and she had legal aid. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the Administrative Court had been entirely right to have proceeded as it had and for the reasons it had given.