Latest Cases

Sentence – Custodial sentence. The defendant appealed against his sentence of a term of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) with a specified minimum custodial term of five years and four months for two charges of wounding with intent. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the sentence of IPP had clearly been suited to the present case in a way that an extended sentence had not been. It further dismissed the defendant's contentions that the abolition of IPP prior to his sentencing had obliged the judge to impose an extended sentence to comply with arts 5, 7 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the international norm and principle of lex mitior. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant citizen of Uganda, suffered injuries following an aborted removal from the United Kingdom by the second defendant removal company, engaged by the first defendant Home Office. The claimant brought a claim for damages for assault. A preliminary issue was ordered as to whether there was lawful justification for the use of force to convey the claimant to Heathrow or to put him on or remove him from the flight. As it was accepted that no removal direction had been issued for that flight for the claimant's removal, the Queen's Bench Division held that the determination of the case required a full hearing. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Sri Lankan national sought judicial review of the lawfulness of his immigration detention. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it could not be said that the Secretary of State had failed in her public law duties in failing to take reasonable steps to give practical effect to her policy of preventing the detention of torture victims other than in exceptional circumstances. 

Company – Liquidator. The defendant company sought to strike out the contractual claim brought by the claimant joint liquidators in their own name on the ground that they had no power or standing to bring the claim. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claim was not of the nature such that the liquidators were entitled to bring the claim in their own names. However, the claim would not be struck out at the present stage because the liquidators ought to have the opportunity to consider their position. 

Practice – Administrative Court. The appellant, biomedical scientist (BMS), was suspended by the respondent regulatory body the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). A panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee (CCC) of the HCPC (the panel) found that he had fallen significantly below the basic level practice across all areas of clinical bench work in the laboratory, time management and health and safety over a considerable period of time. The panel imposed a sanction of suspension. The appellant appealed. The Administrative Court held that in all the circumstances, it would be unfair and disproportionate to strike the appellant off and the sanction of suspension had been one which had been open to the panel in the light of its findings. 

Negligence – Remoteness of damage. The proceedings arose from oil spillages in Nigeria, for which the defendant company had admitted liability. The claimants were a large number of people living on land damaged or otherwise affected by the spillages. The Technology and Construction Court made findings on a number of preliminary issues. 

Immigration – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in considering the most recent country guidance on Sri Lanka (GJ and Others (post-civil war: returnees)[2013] UKUT 00319 (IAC)) held that that guidance had not been vitiated by material legal error. 

Evidence – Witness. In the course of proceedings, the defendant failed to submit a witness statement or witness summary within time limits. She applied, on the first day of trial, to call a witness. The Chancery Division held that, weighing up all the factors, it was appropriate for the evidence to be admitted. 

Contract – Construction. The claimants brought claims for passing off and trade mark infringement. The latter claim was stayed, but the claimants succeeded on the former claim. The defendants appealed against a decision by a master that a conditional fee agreement (CFA) between the claimants and their solicitors entitled the claimants, in principle, to recover, from the defendants, their solicitors' base costs, a success and certain disbursements. The defendants contended that the master had erred in holding that the claimants had 'won the claim' when there had been no final determination of the trade mark infringement claim. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that, on the true construction of the CFA, it was not necessary to have reached a final decision on the whole claim for the claimants or their solicitors to be able to tell whether on not the claim had been finally decided in the claimants' favour. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The judge after a fact finding hearing found that nine specific allegations made by the local authority in relation to six children had taken place. Following certain retractions of the allegations the matter was remitted to the same judge who did not find the retractions credible and following a further fact finding hearing, the conclusion was that there should be residence orders in respect of the two elder children, a special guardianship order in respect of the youngest child and special guardianship orders in respect of the other three children. The father appealed and the Family Court dismissed his appeal finding that the findings of the judge were unassailable.