Latest Cases

Immigration – Rules. The appellant foreign nationals had all been refused leave to remain in the United Kingdom and the Secretary of State had determined that their removal would be proportionate. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed all of their appeals and gave guidance on the obligations of the Secretary of State under para 353B (exceptional circumstances) of the Immigration Rules. 

Injunction – Freezing order. A claim was brought by the administrators of the claimant company against various defendants, alleging that assets belonging to an associated company had been transferred to other companies without any consideration having been paid. Freezing orders were granted ex-parte on the application of the administrators and, on the return date of the application, the defendants contended that the injunctions should be discharged because the court had allegedly been misled. Due to lack of court time, the defendants agreed to enter into undertakings. The matter was re-listed and later sent back to the judge who had made the ex-parte injunctions, given the defendants' allegations. The Chancery Division discharged the undertaking where they had been granted on erroneous facts and under the erroneous impression that the draft orders, presented at the ex parte hearing, had been in the standard form and where the draft orders had not been drafted by counsel in the case. 

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant company appealed against its conviction for failing, so far as reasonably practicable, to ensure the health and safety of its employees after an employee suffered a fractured arm at work. It contended that the judge had erred in rejecting its no case submission on the basis that a risk that would only have materialised if an employee had done something very foolish was insufficient to pass the evidential threshold. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the creation of a material risk by the carelessness, including gross carelessness, of an employee remained a material risk. Accordingly, the judge had been right to conclude that the threshold for the case to go to the jury had been crossed. 

Costs – Order for costs. The appellant sought to pursue a private nuisance action against the respondent, concerning the respondent's non-compliance with planning permission conditions. The judge refused the appellant a protective costs order (PCO) and she appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that art 9.3 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters could apply to private nuisance actions. However, having regard to the limited public benefit which the appellant's action would achieve, it did not fall within the scope of art 9.3 of the Convention. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The patient had a long-standing diagnosis of psychiatric ill-health, she was married to TB who suffered from schizophrenia. There were many problems in their living arrangements. A best interests assessor conducted an assessment and found that the patient refused to acknowledge any concerns. The assessor found herself 'forced' to conclude that she lacked capacity. The local authority issued proceedings under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 regarding the patient's capacity to litigate. The Court of Protection held that, the patient did not have capacity to decide whether to live with TB, what contact to have with him, and what her care arrangements should be; and, if she was to be accommodated in local authority care and that any deprivation of liberty should be authorised by the court. 

Solicitor – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant was a solicitor who failed to pay costs and a wasted costs order made against him. The respondent Solicitors Regulation Authority's (SRA) Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found that the appellant could not simply ignore the court order, but that he had not failed to deal appropriately with the regulator. The appellant appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the SDT's findings had been correct. 

Arbitration – Award. The proceedings concerned copper mining in the Republic of Zambia. A number of disputes arose between the parties concerning their various contractual agreements. An award was made by the arbitration tribunal, and the claimant sought to challenge the award under ss 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The Commercial Court held, in dismissing the application, that the jurisdictional objections raised by KCM would fail, and that no irregularity had occurred to allow the s 68 application to succeed. 

Electricity – Supply. The claimant owned a power station, but intended to become a predominantly biomass fuelled generator. In order to do so, it applied for an investment contract from the government. The Department of Energy and Climate Change, to which the defendant Secretary of State had delegated the decision, determined that the claimant satisfied its selection criteria at the initial application stages, but decided that, at the final application phase, the claimant did not satisfy its selection criteria and was ineligible. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the decision was Wednesbury unreasonable. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The second defendant operated a waste transfer station under a permit granted under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 by the claimant, the Environment Agency. The first defendant was the waste site manager. A suspension notice was issued seeking to reduce the accumulated pile of waste on the site by imposing conditions. Following an alleged lack of compliance with that notice, the claimant applied for committal of the defendants for contempt of court. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application finding that there had been too much uncertainty as to what and how the relevant part of the order was to be complied with for it to be enforced by the process of contempt. 

Compensation – Criminal injuries. The appellant was physically injured in a violent assault. More than two years after the assault, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic epilepsy caused by the assault. He applied out of time to the criminal injuries compensation fund. His application was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that it was open to an applicant seeking a waiver in respect of a late claim under para 18 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (2008) to show that, even if he had suffered some immediately apparent relatively minor injury, it had been reasonable for him, in his particular circumstances, not to have made it the subject of a compensation claim, even if another person in the same circumstances might reasonably have done so.