Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of his application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom to Tier 4 (General) student. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had correctly notified the claimant that he had no right of appeal, as his leave had expired on the date he had made his application. Further, the Secretary of State had made a rational and lawful decision to refuse the claimant's claim to remain in the UK, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Execution – Charging order. The claimant issued CPR Pt 8 proceedings to enforce a charging order. The defendant produced a declaration of trust, which recited that the lease of the property in question had been granted to her in her capacity as a trustee. Other evidence produced included a transcript of a 1996 judgment in respect of other proceedings brought against the defendant. The master was not persuaded as to the authenticity of the declaration of trust and made an order enforcing the final charging order. The defendant appealed. The Chancery Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the master was bound to address what the district judge, in the 1996 judgment, had said about the material before him, even if the master had not had a copy of that material. 

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. 

Adjudication – Award. The claimant engaged the first named defendant to carry out works at his flat. The defendant referred a dispute over alleged unpaid fees for work done to adjudication. The adjudicator found in favour of the claimant that the sum claimed by the defendant was not due to it. However, he further found that he had no jurisdiction to award a net sum to the claimant as claimed in accounts submitted after the adjudication had started. The claimant applied for summary judgment, contending for the sum claimed in his accounts. The Technology and Construction Court held that the adjudicator had been right to determine that he had no jurisdiction to award a net sum to the claimant and he was not entitled to summary judgment on that sum. 

Employment – Equal pay for equal work. The present proceedings concerned the claim by female employees of a local authority for equal pay in respect of a certain period of their employment. The employment tribunal decided at a pre-hearing review that the authority had failed to establish that the difference in pay over that period had been due to a material factor which had not been the difference of sex. Consequently, the tribunal held that the employees were not precluded from pursuing those claims in respect of that period. Although the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that the tribunal had erred in its reasons for arriving at that decision, it upheld the tribunal's decision for different reasons. 

Police – Complaint against police. The proceedings concerned an appeal against a ruling that the powers of the defendant Independent Police Complaints Commission, when reporting on a 'special requirements' investigation of a compliant about a police officer's conduct, were confined to stating whether the officer had a case to answer in misconduct proceedings and did not extend to expressing findings on the reasonableness and/or legality of the officer's conduct. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that, in a 'special requirements' investigation, it was beyond the powers of the investigators to purport, themselves, to decide the merits of a case that they considered had called for an answer. 

Insurance – Claim. The proceedings arose out of a serious fire at the Sugar Hut Club, Essex in 2009. A dispute arose as to, inter alia, the amount of business interruption losses to which the claimants were entitled. In particular, the parties disagreed as to the calculation of the overall loss of turnover. The Commercial Court held that the claimants were entitled to recover the net sums as calculated in accordance with the judgment, using a modified version of the claimants' expert's approach, together with interest. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The main proceedings concerned the sale and disposal of the interests of the claimants and others in shares in one or more corporate entities which owned a football club, to purchasers connected with a well-known businessmen Bernie Ecclestone and another individual. The defendants had been retained and instructed by the claimants and others in relation to the transaction. The claimants sought relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 in respect of its failure to serve notice on the defendants of the existence of funding arrangements. The Chancery Division, in allowing the application, held that, despite the need to encourage compliance, it was not just to withhold relief from sanction in the circumstances of the case. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for the erection of two detached industrial buildings, which it acknowledged would cause harm to heritage assets. The Planning Court dismissed all but one of the claimant's grounds of challenge. However, it postponed making any final order until after the Secretary of State had had a reasonable period of time to consider whether he would wish to call the application in for decision by him. 

European Union – Trade marks. The claimant companies sought an order restricting access to certain websites, which were selling counterfeit products in violation of their trade marks. The Chancery Division held that, with the addition of minor safeguards, the orders would be made as sought.