Latest Cases

Contract – Construction. The proceedings concerned an application for a stay, arising out of proceedings brought by the authority, which the defendant contended breached a term of the contract, made on the FIDIC General Conditions of Contract for EPC/Turnkey Projects issued by FIDIC in 1999, which provided that disputes would be adjudicated by a dispute adjudication board. The Technology and Construction Court, in granting a stay, held that the contract required that the determination of the present dispute was to be by way of adjudication and amicable settlement and, only failing that, by litigation. 

Costs – Order for costs. In a dispute concerning costs, the claimant was required to file Further Information, which it failed to file on time as the result of an oversight. The claimant submitted that, among other things, there had been no breach of the CPR in failing to provide the Further Information at the commencement of the detailed assessment proceedings. The Chancery Division held that, although there had been breach, the claimant's appeal against the finding of the costs judge would be allowed on the basis that an incorrect sanction had been applied. 

Immigration – Deportation. The appellant appealed against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber) to allow the respondent Secretary of State's appeal against a decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, allowing the appellant's appeal against an order to deport him to Uganda. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal on the ground concerning art 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, considered whether the provisions of the Immigration Act 2014 and the new 2014 Immigration Rules (the 2014 Rules) would have any relevance to the appeal and, assuming that the appeal had to be decided by reference to the statutory provisions prevailing before the Act and 2014 Rules had applied, how the Immigration Rules in force in 2012 were to be applied. 

Human Rights – Torture. The claimant appealed against the judge's decision that the framework for control and restraint of those subject to removal from the United Kingdom by aircraft was compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights and that the publication of a redacted Use of Force Training Manual was lawful. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that there was no basis for finding a breach of arts 2 or 3 of the Convention, nor was there any basis for departing from the judge's analysis and conclusions as to the lawfulness of the redactions. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Turkish national sought damages for unlawful immigration detention for over ten months. The Administrative Court held that there had been a breach of r 34 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, SI 2001/238, by failing to conduct a medical examination within 24 hours of his admission to immigration detention. However, even if such examination had been carried out on the claimant's admission to immigration detention, that would not have affected the decision to continue to detain him. Accordingly, the claimant was only entitled to nominal damages. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant applied to have an ex parte order, withdrawing an accepted CPR Pt 3 offer set aside. The Queen's Bench Division held that the only new circumstances which could make it just to permit a party to withdraw its offer before the expiry of the relevant period were circumstances which the offeror was able and willing to make known to the offeree at the time of serving notice of withdrawal. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Administrative Court held that the claimant had not established that the new regime under the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014 (the 2014 Act), which entailed a change from a system of regulation based upon place of supply to one based upon place of consumption, was unlawful under European or domestic law. It served a series of legitimate objectives and there was no proper basis for concluding that it would be discriminatory. Further, the claimant's passporting proposal would not meet the legitimate objectives, or prove effective or achievable. 

Employment tribunal – Race discrimination. The employer appealed against the employment tribunal's finding of unlawful race discrimination in respect of the employee. The employer contended that the tribunal had decided the case on a point which had never been identified as an issue. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the appeal, held that it had not been open to the tribunal to make that finding having regard to the ET1 and the agreed issues. 

Consumer credit – Agreement. The claimant contended that his relationship with the defendant lender had been unfair, under ss 140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, because of the way in which the defendant had exercised or enforced its rights under a mortgage, given its knowledge of his mental disability. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the claimant had not established that his relationship with the defendant had been unfair in the way alleged. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellants appealed against orders for their extradition and costs orders imposed. The Divisional Court held that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to determine an appeal from a costs order where a person had challenged that order as a part of pursuing an unsuccessful appeal against an extradition order. However, it did have jurisdiction to vary or quash a costs order when the person had successfully appealed an extradition order pursuant to ss 26 and 27 of the Extradition Act 2003. The costs order against the first appellant would be quashed, as he was successful on his appeal, but not that against the unsuccessful second defendant.