Latest Cases

Immigration – Removal. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to remove him and detain him pending his removal. The Secretary of State contended that the application should fail because the claimant had an alternative remedy. The Administrative Court considered the potential conflict in the jurisprudence of the High Court and the Upper Tribunal as to the principles governing when the jurisdiction of the High Court should be exercised. It then refused to entertain the application, as an alternative remedy existed by way of out of country appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and that was the proper avenue for challenging the Secretary of State's decision. 

Prison – Release on licence. The claimant was released on licence, following a term of imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving, subject to the condition that he was prevented from entering his home town and his family home. The claimant wished to visit his family home to provide care for his grandparents and sought judicial review of the condition. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that to exclude the claimant from visiting his family home would be an unjustified interference with his rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Immigration – Deportation. Two appeals were heard together because they raised similar issues as to the effect and application of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Maslov v Austria ([2008] ECHR 1638/03). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the first appeal, as all relevant factors had been considered and there had been very serious reasons to justify deportation. The second appeal by the Secretary of State was allowed, as The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had made no finding that had justified making different primary factual findings from those made by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). 

Education – Higher education. The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal of a student loan due to the fact she only had discretionary leave to remain. The Administrative Court held that there had been no real engagement by the defendant Secretary of State in a justification of the rationality or proportionality of the blanket exclusion from eligibility for a student loan. 

Patent – Infringement. The claimant owned a patent for a medical device for occluding an atrial septal defect, often referred to as a 'hole in the heart'. The defendant contended, among other things, that the patent was invalid on grounds including anticipation through prior disclosure to doctors at a children's hospital where the claimant had conducted clinical trials of the new occlude device. The Patents Court held that the patent was invalid on the grounds of anticipation or, alternatively, obviousness. There had been no presumption of confidentiality, as contended by the claimant, simply because the device had been disclosed at a clinical trial. 

Patent – Infringement. The claimant company, Lilly, created a pharmaceutical product. It sought a declaration that any application for a supplementary protection certificate relying, for its legal basis, on a patent owned by the defendant company, HGS, and based on a medicinal product containing T, an antibody, would be invalid. In the course of proceedings, a question was referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Chancery Division considered the CJEU's response to the question and held that, as a result, Lilly's claim for a declaration would be dismissed. 

Employment – Remuneration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that, contrary to what the employment tribunal had decided, the document sent to the employees by the employer local authority regarding the change in their pay was capable of being a contractual document which, unless vitiated by obvious mistake, had expressed terms and conditions which had been acted on and accepted by the employees to whom it had been addressed. Accordingly, the employees' appeal against the tribunal's rejection of their claim for unauthorised deduction from wages would be allowed and the matter would be remitted to a fresh tribunal to consider whether mistake had vitiated the contractual effect which the document would otherwise have had. 

Action – Immunity from suit. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for false imprisonment and harassment. The judge found that the defendant's complaint to the police, resulting in the claimant's arrest, was protected by witness immunity from suit and, further, struck out the harassment claim. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, gave guidance on the scope of the witness immunity rule and held that it had applied to the defendant's complaints to the police. The remaining text messages relied on to establish harassment, even if constituting a course of conduct, were simply not capable of being seen as harassment. 

Indemnity – Construction of indemnity clause. A dispute had arisen between the parties regarding the interpretation of a sale and purchase agreement and whether the defendant had to reimburse the claimant for sums it had paid following the defendant's assessment to tax in the sum of US$313m in Uganda. The judge had interpreted the SPA in the claimant's favour. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been correct to hold that the disputed clauses were not conditions precedent, but he had erred in having failed to consider live points at the end of the hearing regarding the assessment of the sum owed. The court ordered that the defendant pay US$27m. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought a declaration that the Secretary of State's delay in deciding his application for leave to remain was unlawful, including contrary to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Administrative Court held that the Secretary of State had been in breach of her duties under s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 for failing to put in place arrangements to safeguard the welfare of non-applicant children in the United Kingdom of an adult applicant. However, the Secretary of State's delay had not caused the claimant detriment or prejudice.