Latest Cases

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. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The patient, JL, had Alzheimer's disease. She executed a digital lasting power of attorney for property and financial affairs in favour of her daughter. The Public Guardian applied to the Court of Protection for an order seeking the suspension of AS as attorney for JL and for the revocation and cancellation under s 22(4)(b) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 of the registered property and financial affairs LPA created. AS filed an acknowledgement of service in which she opposed the application. The Court held that it would be in JL's best interests to appoint the authorised officer for property and affairs deputyships of the local authority as her substantive deputy. 

Tort – Occupiers liability. The deceased brought a claim against the defendant for negligence at common law for the consequences of contracting mesothelioma. Considering the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 the Queen's Bench Division held that the claim against the defendant failed on both in respect of the exposure to asbestos that the deceased experienced in the defendant's store in 1967, and in stores subsequently, whilst inspecting store premises. 

Company – Member. The petitioner presented a petition, under s 994 of the Companies Act 2006, seeking relief on the basis that acts or omissions of a company, in which he owned shares, had unfairly prejudiced his interests as a member of that company or that the conduct of the companies affairs had been such as to prejudice those interests. The Companies Court determined, as a preliminary issue, that the petitioner had failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that any of the matters that he had complained about had unfairly prejudiced his interests as a shareholder. 

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 – 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. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant claimed damages for unlawful immigration detention due to her allegations of torture and misfeasance in public office with respect to her attempted removal absent consideration of her further representations. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no independent evidence of torture and the fact that the attempted removal had been unlawful did not mean that the purpose of her detention had ceased to be lawful. Further, there was no evidence of the relevant officials' state of mind such as to find misfeasance in public office. 

Sentence – Consecutive sentences. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed appeals against sentence in respect of four defendants who had been involved in a conspiracy to acquire and sell firearms. The court held that the judge had erred in refusing to apply the principle that consecutive terms should not be imposed for offences arising out of one single incident or transaction. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to Germany to face trial for tax evasion. The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. It was unarguable that the prosecution could or should take place in the jurisdiction of England and Wales, notwithstanding that the appellant was a United Kingdom national ordinarily resident in the UK. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The High Court had granted a freezing injunction over assets held by companies incorporated in Singapore and in respect of which the United States of America had commenced proceedings in its own jurisdiction in respect of allegations of money laundering. The injunction was granted pursuant to s 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the companies' appeal as it had been inexpedient for the judge to have granted the injunction under that section in circumstances where the United Kingdom authorities had expressly stated that they were not prepared to make an application for a prohibition order pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005.