Latest Cases

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). 

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. 

Criminal evidence – Admissibility of evidence. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of a charge of rape, the court held that the trial judge had not erred in the exercise of her discretion in refusing counsel leave to argue, though late, a minute objecting to the admissibility of a statement the appellant had given to the police, and moreover, the statement was not inadmissible and there was nothing that would justify a finding that the police interview was unfair. 

Malicious prosecution – Prosecutor. As a result of a jury's answers, the judge entered judgment against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in the sum of £25,000 as damages for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The Commissioner appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had not misdirected the jury on the burden of proof as to false imprisonment or the identity of the prosecutor as to malicious prosecution. Further, loyal to the principles on which the court would exercise extreme caution and reluctance in relation to overruling decisions of a jury on questions of fact, the perversity ground of appeal would be dismissed. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant was an Indian national who first entered the United Kingdom pursuant to entry clearance as a student in order to study. She returned to the United Kingdom on 28 December 2011 from a holiday in India. She was questioned by the immigration officer, who made a decision that her purpose in entering the United Kingdom had changed from studying to working as a nanny, and on that basis, her leave to remain was cancelled. The claimant brought a claim for judicial review seeking damages for unlawful detention. Her claim was transferred to the Queen's Bench Division. That court held that the immigration officer had insufficient evidence on which to base his conclusion, that the claimant had been unlawfully detained and that therefore she was entitled to general damages. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The defendant local authority had produced a development plan for a new housing development. It also applied for planning permission for a new waste facility nearby the proposed development. The authority granted planning permission for the waste facility and the claimant, a local resident, sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority's grant of planning permission had not failed to have regard to material considerations and was not Wednesbury unreasonable. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The proceedings concerned a charge on a property and a loan provided to a trust via a facility letter. The claimant bank sought summary judgment in relation to claims concerning the property and for sums due under the facility letter. The Chancery Division held that there was no realistic defence to the claim under the facility letter, and the bank would be entitled to summary judgment in respect of the sums claimed. Further, regarding the charge on the property, the trustees would not be estopped from relying on defects in the legal charge. 

Adult incapacity – Guardianship order – Application for directions. Sheriff Court: In an application under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 in which a local authority sought directions in respect of the exercise of power in a guardianship order to restrict contact between an adult, who was incapable of giving informed consent to having sexual relations, and her boyfriend, with whom she wished to have sexual relations, the court was unable to give any directions which would ease the dilemma the council faced, although it suggested that consideration be given to revisiting the question of whether the adult was capable of consenting to sexual relations. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In the context of contentious defamation proceedings between the husband and former wife, the wife applied for an order that the husband answer a number of requests made in a request under CPR 18 and that time for service of the defence should be extended until 14 days after provision of the answers. The Queen's Division held that the application did not fall within the purpose of CPR 18 and would be refused. 

Nuisance – Noise. The Supreme Court ruled on consequential issues arising from its earlier judgment in Coventry and others v Lawrence and another[2014] All ER (D) 245 (Feb) concerning an action in nuisance brought by the appellant owners and occupiers of a residential bungalow against the respondent occupiers of a nearby stadium and their landlords. The issue as to whether the costs regime under the Access to Justice Act 1999, and in particular a claimant's right to recover any success fee and ATE premium from an unsuccessful defendant infringed the European Convention on Human Rights was adjourned for further hearing.