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. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The appellant, G, acquired a loan from the respondent company, BMS. BMS brought proceedings when he defaulted on the loan. The deputy master awarded summary judgment to BMS. The Chancery Division dismissed G's appeal and refused permission for him to adduce further evidence. 

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. 

Practice – Public procurement. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant Cabinet Office, in respect of an unsuccessful bid concerning a public procurement project. The claimant sought early disclosure of specific documents relating to the tendering process. The Technology and Construction Court adjourned the application as being premature where it had been made before the defendant's grounds for seeking to lift a statutory suspension on the placing of the contract with the successful bidder had been spelled out and before the defendant had served its defence. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Family Division found N guilty of some, but not all, the alleged contempts of court. The local authority then made a second application, which sought N's committal to prison for further alleged contempts (the second application). The court deferred the sentencing of N until the authority decided whether to pursue the second application. The authority subsequently sought permission to discontinue the second application. The court granted the authority permission to withdraw the second application and deferred the sentencing of N for the contempts of which he had been found guilty. 

Constitutional law – Crown dependency. The Administrative Court made a declaration that the decision of the Standing Committee of the Privy Council for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey, which had recommended the approval of the passing of a law in Sark, had been an unlawful decision in that, in certain respects, it was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court held that, as a general proposition, the courts of the United Kingdom did have jurisdiction judicially to review an Order in Council which was made on the advice of the UK government, but that, in the present case, the court should not have exercised that jurisdiction. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Following the father's acquittal of grevious bodily harm of his youngest child, the local authority brought care proceedings in respect of the child and the three other children of the family. There was a fact finding hearing in which the Family Division found that he criteria under s 31 of the Children's Act 1989 had been in respect of all four children, and particularly so in respect of the youngest and oldest child. 

Defamation – Libel. The claimant brought an action against the defendant in libel following the uploading of a video onto the internet. by the defendant regarding the safety of a pony sold by the claimant to the defendant for the purposes of children. The Queens Bench Division held, inter alia, that there had been a defamatory allegation of fact. 

Sentence – Reduction. The claimant had been in custody on remand for a period exceeding the sentence imposed for handling stolen goods. He sought judicial review of his subsequent recall to prison for breach of his licence. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that, on the proper construction of s 240ZA(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, it allowed time on remand to be counted only against time spent in custody, but it could not be credited to reduce time spent on licence. Further, the claimant's rights under art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been breached. 

Adoption – Practice. The parents were convicted of child cruelty and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment each. Two of the parents' children were placed for adoption and suitable families were found to adopt them. The Family Division considered whether to make an order allowing the forenames and surnames of the children to be changed to protect their anonymity from a campaign aimed against any prospective adopters. The court held that there was no alternative but to make the order sought.