Latest Cases

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. 

Injunction – Interim injunction. The claimant son of a recording artist sought an injunction to stop publication of a semi-autobiographical book, written by his father. A judge dismissed the claim on various grounds. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed the appeal on the questions whether the claimant had a cause of action for misuse of private information or negligence. However, it held that the claimant had sufficiently favourable prospects on the facts of the case of establishing at trial his claim that the publication by the defendants of the work in its present form would constitute intentional conduct causing him psychiatric harm to justify an injunction restraining publication of parts of the work pending trial. 

Estoppel – Res judicata. The claimant lending company, CFB, sought to execute a warrant of possession on property owned by the defendants. The defendants had defaulted on two loans, applying to a house and a set of cottages. A dispute arose as to whether CFB would be prevented by cause of action estoppel from relying upon the house charge as security for the cottages loan. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that CFB would be prevented from doing so, but that the question of whether an enforceable contract had existed so that CFB would not be able to enforce the charge on the house so long as instalments on the house loan were paid would be referred to the county court. 

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. 

Adoption – Order. The mother of a child sought leave to oppose an application for adoption of her youngest child. Her two older children had already been made the subject of care and placement orders because of the risk of sexual abuse posed to them by the paternal family and the mother's unwillingness to sever her strong ties to that family. The Family Court dismissed the mother's application. Although she alleged that her circumstances had changed and she had moved away from the paternal family, the judge was not satisfied that the mother's circumstances had changed, or changed for a sufficient period, to allow her application. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.