Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Kosovan national challenged the validity of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to remove him, but only grant an out-of-country right of appeal, to refuse leave to remain and indefinite leave to remain, and not to apply para 395C of the Immigration Rules. The Administrative Court held that three of the claimant's grounds were without merit. His other ground was resolved by the Secretary of State's undertaking that, if a decision to remove was to be taken, the claim would not be certified as ill-founded so as to deprive the claimant of an in-country right of appeal. 

Family proceedings – Child. The proceedings concerned a child in respect of whom care proceedings were brought by the local authority. The whereabouts of her mother, who was Albanian, and her father were unknown. The Family Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case as the child was habitually resident in England. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The judge granted an interim anti-suit injunction against the defendant insurers on the basis that a bill of lading incorporated an English law and exclusive jurisdiction clause referred to in the charterparty. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the reasoning of the judge leading to the conclusion that the jurisdiction clause had been incorporated was compelling. 

Housing – Homeless person. The appellant became homeless after having become unable to afford the rent on her property in Westminster. The local authority offered the appellant temporary accommodation in Bletchley, which the appellant refused. The reviewing officer upheld the authority's decision and the county court dismissed the appellant's appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the authority had not breached its obligations under s 208 of the Housing Act 1996 and the decision had not been unlawful. The authority had been entitled to take a broad range of factors into account in deciding whether it had been reasonably practicable to provide accommodation to the appellant within its own district. 

Mortgage – Equitable interest. The present appeal was one of ten test cases in which the defendant home owners (the vendors) were persuaded to sell their properties to purchasers who promised the vendors the right to remain in their homes after the sale. The purchasers bought the home with the assistance of mortgages from lenders, who were not given notice of the promises to the vendors. The purchasers defaulted on the loans and the lenders sought possession of the homes. The Supreme Court held that the vendors had acquired no more than personal rights against the purchasers when they agreed to sell their properties on the basis of the purchasers' promises that they would be entitled to remain in occupation. Accordingly, the vendors did not have interests whose priority was protected by virtue of s 29(2)(a)(ii) of, and Sch 3, para 2, to the Land Registration Act 2002. 

Damages – Breach of statutory duty. The Court of Appeal had allowed the claimant's appeal against the dismissal by the trial judge of his claims for damages against National Grid Electricity Transmission plc (NGET) in respect of the cause of his mesothelioma, on the basis that NGET had been in breach of its statutory obligations pursuant to reg 2(a) of the Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931, SI 1931/1140. However, the Court had upheld the judge's decision to dismiss the claim in respect of breach of statutory duty pursuant to s 47 of the Factories Act 1937. The Supreme Court dismissed both NGET's appeal and the claimant's cross-appeal against the Court's judgment. 

Company – Director. The Commercial Court allowed a monetary claim by the claimant company, against the defendant the former CEO of the claimant, in respect of requests by him for payment. In so doing it dismissed the defendant's defence, which depended on there having been, at the dates of each request by him for a payment, an amount due, or to become due, to him in respect of salary and/or expenses. 

Education – Teacher. The claimant was employed by the defendant local authority as a teacher at a school before being released from teaching activities to carry out trade union activities. The authority suspended the claimant. The claimant issued proceedings, claiming that the school had exclusive power to suspend her. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the claimant's contract of employment with the authority had been varied. Accordingly, the claimant fell within the scope of the authority's procedure, as she was within the category of all permanent authority employees and had not fallen within the exceptions which related to staff working in schools. 

Value added tax – Exemptions. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, concerning whether the exemption from VAT conferred by United Kingdom primary legislation in respect of the supply of regulated access services by Royal Mail, as a designated provider of universal postal services, was consistent with European Union law. The Administrative Court held that, following the judgment in R (on the application of TNT Post UK Ltd) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners: C-357/07 ([2009] All ER (D) 175 (Apr)), the UK had amended the relevant VAT legislation in a way that had been compatible with EU law and the current UK VAT exemption was likewise compatible with EU law. 

Criminal law – Sexual assault. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, considered the case of a defendant who had been convicted of both sexual assault contrary to s 3(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and robbery contrary to s 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968, arising out of the same incident. The court allowed the defendant's appeal against sentence to a limited extent but held that the judge had been perfectly entitled to move outside the recommended range for the combination of two offences, if he had intended to pass concurrent terms.