Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Vietnamese national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision granting her and her children discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom, rather than indefinite leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there was no indication at all in any of the documents that any assessment had ever been made by the Secretary of State of what the best interests of the claimant's elder child might be, in accordance with s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In proceedings between the mother and father, the Family Division made certain findings of fact. The children had been taken to England from Pakistan in both 2011 and 2012 because that was what the father and his family decided should happen. The removals were unilateral and thus unlawful actions with grave and long lasting consequences for the children's relationship with their mother. The mother cared deeply for them and was entirely committed to their welfare. Nevertheless, the children would not be restored to the habitation of their mother. 

Judgment – Default judgment. The claimant bank had obtained judgment in default of acknowledgement of service against the Italian regional authority. The bank then issued separate proceedings claiming substantial sums allegedly due to it and applied for summary judgment. The bank was successful in its application. The Italian authority failed in its application to have the default judgment set aside. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, refused the Italian authority's application for permission to appeal against the refusal of its application to set aside and, in doing so, commented upon the applicability of Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Denton v TH White Ltd; Decadent Vapours Ltd v Bevan; Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies to applications to set aside a default judgment. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The first respondent Secretary of State's inspector dismissed the appellant's appeal against an enforcement notice on the basis that there had been no continuous breach of planning control for a period of four years. The appellant appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that there was no discernible basis upon which the inspector had fallen into error. 

Crown – Prerogative. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to issue her a passport. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State's decision was obviously flawed. It was based on an error of facts as to the submitted birth certificate and was a decision which was not open to proper external scrutiny. 

European Union – Income tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provided that the failure by a non-resident investment fund to comply with the obligations to communicate and publish certain information required by that legislation, which were applicable without distinction to resident and non-resident investment funds alike, resulting in the flat-rate taxation of the income which the taxpayer earned from that investment fund, since that legislation did not allow the taxpayer to provide evidence or information that could prove the actual size of that income. 

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. 

Child – Protection. A baby born by emergency caesarean section, he later suffered acute cardio-respiratory deterioration and required mechanical ventilation. The NHS Trust caring for the baby brought the matter to court to ask for permission to withdraw ventilation, which would inevitably result in the baby's death. The parents did not agree to the withdrawal of ventilation. The Family Division held that it was in the child's best interests to withdraw ventilation. 

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. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Sri Lankan national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse him leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, examined key points which emerged from the case law concerning the question as to whether exceptional circumstances justified leave to remain outside the Immigration Rules in order to satisfy art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It held that the decision letter had contained no indication or reasoning which demonstrated that the Secretary of State had considered the exercise of discretion, the question of exceptional circumstances or the question of proportionality.