Latest Cases

Contract – Construction of contract. The claimant applied for a declaration as to the meaning of a provision concerning reinvestment criteria, as defined in a collective management agreement (CMA), which governed a collateralised loan obligation structure (the CLO). The first defendant had, under the CLO, raised €602m through the issues of 14 classes of notes. An issue arose as to whether money, representing unscheduled principal proceeds, was available for reinvestment, in circumstances where the notes had been downgraded by a ratings group in 2010 and, subsequently upgraded in 2012. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, reversed the Chancellor of the High Court's decision and held that the disputed provision did not have the effect of giving a historic downgrade in the notes a level of pre-dominance within the structure of the scheme that would prevent future reinvestment. 

Jurisdiction – Challenge to jurisdiction. The claimant credit rating company brought claims, including the 'alternative declaration claim' in the English court against the defendants, who were said to be investors in financial instruments which had been issued by the defendant bank (the bank). The fifth defendant bank, which was domiciled in The Netherlands, sought a declaration that the English court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims against it and sought an order setting aside service out of the jurisdiction. The Commercial Court, dismissing the applications, held that there was a lis between the bank and the claimant on the alternative declaration claim. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant, a Jamaican national, was granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom, but was ineligible for British citizenship because of his illegitimacy. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment. The defendant Secretary of State ordered his deportation and certified his human rights claim as clearly unfounded. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the claimant's rights under arts 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated, that the legislation could not be read down to comply with those rights and quashed the certification. 

Power of attorney – Lasting power of attorney. VH was born in 1926 and lived in her own home. In 2010, she appointed her son DH to be her sole executor of her will and executed an Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) in which she appointed DH to be her sole attorney. Following the taking out of a mortgage transaction in VH's name, an investigation was opened in the LPA. The Court of Protection held that following criteria under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, VH lacked the capacity to revoke the LPA and DH had behaved in a way that had both contravened his very limited authority to make gifts under s 12 of the Act and had not been in VH's best interests. 

Legal aid – Entitlement. The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State's proposal, by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2014, to introduce a residence test for cases most in need of public funding, under Pt 1 of Sch 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that the proposed Order was ultra vires and unlawful. Further, residence was not a lawful ground for discriminating between those who would otherwise be eligible for legal assistance by virtue of Sch 1 to the Act. 

Criminal evidence – Character of accused. The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder on the ground that evidence of his convictions in Bulgaria should not have been admitted. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the verdict was safe. The judge's directions had eliminated the risk that the jury would treat the defendant's convictions as any evidence of propensity. Further, on the defendant's daughter's evidence that the defendant had told her that he was going to kill the deceased, there had been no realistic conclusion other than that the killing had been an act of revenge. 

Aerodrome – Aerodrome open for public use. The claimant, the operator of Redhill Aerodrome, which was located on the metropolitan Green Belt, applied for planning permission to replace grass runways with a hard runway. The second and third defendant local authorities refused the application and the inspector, appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, refused the claimant's appeal. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the inspector had erred in adopting an impermissible approach to the National Planning Policy Framework. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and of arts 31 and 34 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area provisions which related to freedom of establishment. The request had been made in proceedings brought by Nordea Bank Danmark A/S, a company incorporated under Danish law, against decisions of the Danish Ministry of Taxation reincorporating into its basis of assessment losses previously deducted in respect of some of its permanent establishments abroad. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Sri Lankan national had been refused asylum, but the European Court of Human Rights had held that his return would be a breach of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The claimant absconded and failed to comply with his reporting restrictions as a sex offender and the civil war in Sri Lanka ended. The Secretary of State decided to remove the claimant to Sri Lanka in light of the improved conditions there. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the judge's dismissal of his judicial review challenge to that decision. There had been no unlawfulness in the Secretary of State's delay in making a decision as to his status after the decision of the Strasbourg Court. 

Human Rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The defendant Secretary of State had policies concerning the holding of information of the claimant's gender reassignment. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the Secretary of State's policies were unlawful. The Administrative Court held that, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although two policies had a proper legal foundation, they lacked clarity and precision, were not readily accessible, and they would need to be kept under review. That further applied to the claimant's case of indirect discrimination. However, there was no breach of the public sector equality duty.