Latest Cases

Personal Injury. The claimant, executrix of the deceased's estate, received £8,500 general damages, £11,800 for bereavement, following the defendant's admission of liability that his misdiagnosis and consequent failure to prescribe appropriate medication for her husband amounted to clinical negligence and led to the acceleration of symptoms associated with a pre-existing condition. 

A had been convicted of sexual offences and the Secretary of State sought to deport him. A challenged the deportation decision. One of his grounds of opposition was that he would be subject to violence in his country of origin if his crimes were known. An order was made, without notice to the media and without the ability for them to make representations, under s 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 that A could not be identified. The BBC sought to have that order set aside. The application was dismissed. The BBC appealed. The Supreme Court held that it had, in the circumstances, been necessary and lawful to have departed from the principles of open justice. Further, the order had not been incompatible with the rights of the BBC under art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the procedure that had been followed had satisfied the BBC's entitlement to an effective remedy. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant, an Algerian national, appealed against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (UT) dismissing his appeal against the Secretary of State refusal to grant him leave, and his family further leave, to remain in the United Kingdom on account of his child's medical condition. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal based on art 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, but allowed the appeal based on art 8 of the Convention, where the UT's decision on art 8 of the Convention had contained contradictions and it had not been possible to be confident that the UT's approach to art 8 had been free from material legal error. 

Employment tribunal – Jurisdiction. The employee had issued proceedings in the employment tribunal alleging detriment on grounds related to union activities contrary to s 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal had allowed his claim and the employing NHS Trust had appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the relevant trade union had not been independent at the time of the acts complained of, namely three years before, therefore the tribunal had not had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the employee's appeal. It held that the question whether a trade union was independent did not affect the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal in a claim under s 146 of the Act. Further, a certificate of independence was retrospective in its effect for a reasonable period before the date of the certificate. Historic questions of independence were to be referred to the certification officer. 

Copyright – Infringement. The claimant companies owned the copyright to many films and television programmes. They brought proceedings against the first defendant, H, and companies alleged to have been controlled by him, contending that he had been responsible for large-scale copyright fraud. The Chancery Division held that the claimants had established unlawful means conspiracy against H and the other defendants, on the basis of conspiracy to infringe the claimants' copyrights and conspiracy to defraud the claimants. 

Costs – Assessment. The claimant in a personal injury action that had settled put in a bill of costs that included a success fee of 75% on the solicitors' charges. The second defendant, Motor Insurance Bureau, challenged that claim and offered 30%. A master accepted the 30% and the claimant appealed. The Queen's Bench Division considering CPR 45.18 held that the master had not erred in his approach to assessing a reasonable success fee. 

Immigration – Education. The defendant Secretary of State refused the claimant college highly trusted sponsor status due to its refusal rate greater than 20%, including 64 refusals on the ground that the student applicant was unable to confirm how the claimant had assessed their English language ability. The judge refused the claimant's application for judicial review and it appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the application, rejected the claimant's main argument that the ground of refusal was predicated on a requirement that was not contained in the Immigration Rules. 

Immigration – Refusal of leave. The claimants sought judicial review of the transmission of information under the immigration sanction scheme which could be imposed on non-residents seeking to enter or to remain in the United Kingdom who had unpaid NHS debts of at least £1,000. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the relevant information was not confidential, and that the Secretary of State had both the statutory and common law duties to transmit the information. Further, the NHS bodies had had a duty, not a discretion, to transmit the relevant information to the Secretary of State. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The appellant was convicted of two counts of the rape of the complainant, his wife, on a date between 15 December 2005 and 24 January 2012. On the same occasion, he was acquitted by the jury of four other counts of the rape and one count of assault by penetration of his wife and, on the direction of the trial judge, of a sole count of common assault. He appealed against his conviction. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that, inter alia, the verdicts were illogically inconsistent and were, in the circumstances, unsafe. 

Arbitration – Costs. The claimant, Sun United, sought to challenge an award on costs issued by an arbitration tribunal. It contended that under s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, among other things, the tribunal had had no jurisdiction to make the costs award. The Commercial Court held that, on the true construction of the Act, the application did not fall within s 67 of the Act, and would be dismissed.