Latest Cases

Ward of court – Removal of ward from jurisdiction. A mother had fled the jurisdiction with her child who had been made a ward of court. In the course of proceedings seeking their location, the judge had retained the passport of the mother's 16 year-old-son in order to induce him to persuade the mother to return. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that such a coercive order was outside the ambit of the court's powers. 

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. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employee, an eminent doctor and insurance consultant, brought a claim alleging age discrimination against her employers after a consultancy agreement had been terminated. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) dismissed the claim. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the appeal, held that the tribunal had erred in law by only considering the mental process of a senior manager of the employers, but failing to examine the mental processes of other people, who had been significantly involved in the process leading to a decision to terminate the employee's consultancy agreement. The case was remitted to the tribunal for redetermination. 

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. 

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. 

Contract – Contract for services. The claimant company was employed by the defendant companies to assist in finding financial backers for a construction project. It claimed for commission that, it alleged, was due to it under a contract. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that, on the evidence, the claim advanced would fail. 

Cohabitation – Unmarried couple. The proceedings concerned the entitlement of the claimant to provision from the deceased's estate. She had lived with the deceased for some time. The court determined, as a preliminary issue, that she was covered by the Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975. The claimants appealed against that finding. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the court had been entitled to come to that conclusion. 

European Union – Community foreign and security policy. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Sina Bank, an Iranian bank, for annulment of: (i) Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran); and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 1245/2011 (implementing Council Regulation (EU) 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran) in so far as those measures had maintained, after review, the name of Sina Bank's name in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP, and in Annex VIII to Regulation 961/2010. 

Solicitor – Dishonesty. The Chancery Division struck out a claim by a solicitor for the withdrawal of the notice of intervention into her practice where there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant being able to show good grounds for challenging the intervention and no prospect of succeeding in her claim.