Latest Cases

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary panel. The appellant nurse appealed against the decision of the respondent Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC)'s Conduct and Competence Committee (the panel) by which it ordered that he be struck off. Dismissing the appeal, the Administrative Court held that the panel had been entitled to take into account certain hearsay evidence, it had been entirely open to the panel to come to the decisions it had done in respect of each of the allegations it had found proved, there had been no culpable delay on the part of the NMC, and the sanction had not been disproportionate in the circumstances. 

Extradition – Judicial corruption – Right to fair trial. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal against an order for an appellant's extradition to his native Albania, he having been convicted in his absence of murder, the court held that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the level of corruption in the Albanian judicial system was at the 'systemic' level, or that there was a risk of the appellant being the subject of an unfair trial should he be extradited to Albania. 

Land – Interest in land. The Chancery Division granted the claimant's a declaration that the defendants had no beneficial interest in a property and, in particular, no beneficial interest under a trust of land that was a right or claim in relation to the registered estate itself of the property, falling within s 42(1)(c) of the Land Registration Act 2002. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The appellant Sri Lankan national had applied for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of continuous lawful residence for a period of ten years. The respondent Secretary of State refused the application. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) allowed his appeal on the ground that removal would be a disproportionate interference with his private life. The Upper Tribunal found that the FTT had erred in having given insufficient reasons for its decision. It re-made the decision and allowed the Secretary of State's appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Upper Tribunal had been entitled to set aside the decision of the FTT, but that it had erred in its calculation of continuous residence which it had taken into account in assessing the appellant's right to private life. The matter was remitted. 

Employment – Disability. The employee had been off work with severe depression and, after a brief secondment, she had been dismissed on grounds of capability. In allowing the employer's appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal had erred in its decision in respect of both failure to have made reasonable adjustments under s 20 of the Equality Act 2010 and discrimination relating to disability under s 15 of the 2010 Act. Further, the tribunal had not sufficiently demonstrated that it had had the appropriate legal test in mind in finding harassment under s 40 of the 2010 Act. 

Immigration – Education. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse its application for highly trusted sponsor status on the basis of its refusal rate. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State's refusals had been based on an erroneous understanding of the meaning of the relevant guidelines. Further, the Secretary of State had not paid undue regard to the claimant's past record of failure to report students, but had paid insufficient regard to the current capacity and performance of the claimant in reporting unenrolled students who had been refused entry to the United Kingdom. 

Criminal evidence – Witness. The claimant sought exceptional public funding to be represented by counsel at the hearing of a summons requiring disclosure of her counselling records in rape proceedings against her husband. The defendant Director of Legal Aid Casework's refused funding and the claimant challenged his decisions by way of judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the defendant had illegitimately relied on the presence of the counselling service and had failed to consider the relevance of the notes in any detail or the issue of admissibility at all. 

European Union – Freedom to provide services. The General Court of the European Union (Fourth Chamber) ruled, among other things, that arts 3 and 5 of Directive (EC) 2001/29 (on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society) had to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excluded the right of authors to authorise or prohibit the communication of their works by a business, through the intentional distribution of a signal by means of a television or radio sets in the bedrooms of the establishment's patients. Article 16 of Directive 2006/123 (on services in the internal market) had to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which reserved the exercise of collective management of copyright of certain protected works in the member state to a single collecting society. 

Arbitration – Award. The claimant, K, was a professional cricketer. In June 2012, the defendant body found him guilty of two charges, including inducing or encouraging, or attempting to induce or encourage, another cricketer to not to perform to his merits by deliberately conceding a minimum number of runs. He appealed to an arbitral panel, which confirmed that he was to be made subject to a life ban and to pay costs. He brought proceedings, contending that, among other things, the panel had exceeded its powers and that the decision should be set aside for serious irregularity pursuant to s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The Commercial Court held that it had not done so, and that his claim would be dismissed. 

Terrorism – Prevention of. The claimants had both been suspected of terrorism related activity. The Secretary of State had successfully applied for permission to make control orders in respect of both men. They had subsequently been subjected to control orders and terrorism prevention and investigation measures. The claimants' applications for statutory reviews of the control orders and TPIMs were dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that there had been flaws in the handling of their allegations of abuse of process. That issue would be remitted for reconsideration and redetermination on the submission of abuse of process. Further, the control orders were quashed on the ground of material non-disclosure.