Latest Cases

Proceeds of crime – Restraint order. The applicants appealed against a judge's refusal to discharge and vary ex parte orders, restraining them from dealing with property said to be worth more than £1m, under s 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, discharged the orders against the third and fourth defendant companies, as there was no reasonable cause to believe that they had been laundering money. It further imposed a cap of £720,000 on the orders against the first and second applicants, as there was no realistic possibility that a confiscation order would follow in excess of that sum. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The court revoked a lasting power of attorney executed by DP appointing JM. It found that JM had acted in breach of his fiduciary duties. The Daily Mail ran a story demanding to know why JM's anonymity had been preserved and its owner, the intervening party, made an application, in which it sought to have his full name made public. The Court of Protection, in allowing the application, held that the balance came down heavily and decisively in favour of the public being told who JM was. 

Immigration – Leave for indefinite stay. The first claimant Thai national and her four children sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to grant her leave to remain (LTR) for 30 months on the condition that she should have no recourse to public funds (NRPF). The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, having regard to s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, it was not unlawful to grant the first claimant LTR, rather than indefinite leave to remain and it was not unlawful, in principle and in the circumstances, to impose the NRPF condition. 

Arbitration – Award. A contractual dispute between two overseas companies was referred to arbitration. An award was made in favour of the defendant. The claimant's appeal was dismissed for its failure to pay the requisite fees and arbitration costs and its application for an extension of time to pay was refused. The claimant issued proceedings in the Commercial Court to set aside the order, pursuant to ss 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. An issue arose as to whether the claimant had exhausted an available arbitral process of appeal or review or whether it was precluded from bringing the instant claim. The court held that it had exhausted an available arbitral process and that a challenge to a First-tier award, pursuant to ss 67 ad 68 of the Act, was not precluded by the terms of s 70(2) or s 73(2) of the Act. 

Corporation tax – Capital allowances. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by the taxpayers, which were companies within the Next group, against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) rejecting their claim to allowances in respect of expenditure incurred on certain buildings used by the taxpayer for storing goods. The tribunal decided that the buildings at issue were not 'industrial buildings' for the purposes of s 18(1) of the Capital Allowances Act 1990. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Sudanese national sought judicial review of his immigration detention on grounds including the defendant Secretary of State's failure to respond to medical reports, allegedly supporting his claim to have been tortured. The Administrative Court held that the claimant was only entitled to nominal damages for one period of unlawful detention, as he would have been detained in any event. However, he was entitled to real damages for a period of unlawful detention after service of a further medical report, which would have resulted in the quashing of the deportation order. The court further ordered the claimant's release. 

Criminal evidence – Admissibility of evidence – Sheriff's charge. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of two charges involving his having exposed himself to complainers, the court held that the jury were prevented from considering the appellant's admissions in the light of all the material evidence relating to them, the trial sheriff having erred in sustaining the Crown's objection to a line of evidence about how the appellant felt during his police interview and in directing the jury to disregard his evidence about how he felt during the interview and that that there was no challenge to the fairness of the interview. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimants challenged the lawfulness of their grants of leave to remain on the basis that para 276BE of the Immigration Rules fettered the defendant Secretary of State's discretion to grant the child applicants longer than 30 months leave to remain, which was inimical to the fact-sensitive consideration of their childrens best interests, as required by s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that para 276BE of the Immigration Rules was not unlawful as alleged and that the decision to grant the claimants a period of 30 months as requested had not been unlawful. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Disclosure. In the context of libel proceedings, the applicants sought third party disclosure. One third party objected. The Queen's Bench Division held that the statements made by the objecting third party were unlikely to support or adversely affect the case and disclosure was unnecessary to fairly dispose of the claim or to save costs. In relation to the other third parties, the criteria set out in CPR 31.17(3)(a) and (b) were satisfied and orders for disclosure would be made in the exercise of discretion. In the particular circumstances of the case, the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighed the interests of the individual third parties. 

European Union – Applicant company seeking registration of word mark 'THE SPIRIT OF CUBA' as Community trade mark. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by 1872 Holdings vof. (1872 Holdings) against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning invalidity proceedings between Havana Club International and 1872 Holdings regarding the application by 1872 Holdings for registration of the Community word mark 'THE SPIRIT OF CUBA' as a community trade mark.