Latest Cases

Immigration – Deportation. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (UT) dismissed the appellant's appeal against the First-Tier Tribunal's dismissal of his appeal against a deportation order made by the respondent Secretary of State. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the UT had not erred in law and there were no very compelling reasons, nor any exceptional circumstances, which justified setting aside the deportation order. 

Prison – Prison conditions. The claimant was serving a life sentence with a tariff of eight years for sexual offences against children. He sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision not to accept the parole board's recommendation that he was suitable to be transferred to an open prison. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State, whilst giving full weight to the important recommendation of the parole board, had been entitled to depart from it. Further, his reasons for doing so had not been unreasonable or irrational. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Trips and slips. The claimant received £6,000 in general damages following an approved infant settlement after she tripped over defective flooring in the defendant's store. She suffered from a soft tissue injury to her knees and a minor head injury. The claimant suffered from intermittent and minor symptoms, of a permanent nuisance nature, to her left knee. The symptoms caused by the claimant's right knee injury resolved within two years post-accident. The symptoms caused by the claimant's head injury resolved within two weeks. 

Criminal law – Trial. The claimant sought judicial review of the judge's order prohibiting publication of sensitive information heard in camera during his murder trial to the public, including the European Court of Human Rights. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the order was not in breach of the claimant's fundamental human right of access to the courts and it was far from clear that the order had placed the United Kingdom in breach of its international law obligations. Further, the judge had had power to make the order under its inherent powers and pursuant to s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. 

Sentence – Terrorism. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the judge had selected notional custodial terms after trial which had been too high in respect of two defendants, UA and H, who had pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to s 5(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006. The court ruled that the sentences would be quashed and substituted for a sentence of five years three months' imprisonment in respect of UA and a sentence of three years' and nine months' imprisonment in respect of H. 

European Union – Conflict of laws. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 4(1), (2), (4) and (5) of the Convention on the Law applicable to Contractual Obligations. The request had been made in proceedings between Haeger & Schmidt GmbH, a company governed by German law, and Mutuelles du Mans assurances IARD, Va Tech JST SA (Va Tech) and others, concerning compensation for loss suffered by Va Tech during the carriage of a transformer it had purchased for the purposes of its business. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's policy for calculating the amount of financial assistance to be provided, under s 17 of the Children Act 1989, by reference to the amount that the Secretary of State would provide to a failed asylum seeker and his dependants. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the policy had been lawful. Further, although the authority had failed to appreciate the claimants' derivative rights of residence, as the primary carers of a British national child, that had not invalidated the authority's policy or the individual decisions in the claimants' cases. 

Mental health – Mental defective. The claimant local authority sought a declaration that the defendant local authority was responsible for funding the care of a young woman, VC, with a troubled mental health history, pursuant to s 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, in the period following her discharge from detention under s 3 of the Act. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the defendant's facility had become VC's place of residence for the purpose of s 117 of the Act at the point when she had moved there without any place having been held open for her elsewhere. 

Costs – Order for costs. The proceedings concerned a claim by assignees in respect of alleged defects at a large development on the site of the former children's hospital. Issues arose as to whether it was appropriate for the court at a case management conference to grant a 'window' of three or four months whilst the parties engaged in alternative dispute resolution and whether the Technology and Construction Court had discretion to order the production of costs budgets in the case. The court declined to order a window of four months prior to disclosure in the case and, further, held that it had a complete discretion to decide whether costs budgets should be filed and exchanged. 

Town and country planning – Planning permission. The proceedings concerned decisions by the defendant local authority to grant planning permission in respect of a disused school site and the adoption of a policy which identified the site as one of three strategic housing sites. The claimant's challenges to both decisions were unsuccessful and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claim, held that there had been no error of law.