Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Inheritance tax – Exemptions and relief. The claimant was the administratrix of the estate of HB and the executrix of EB. EB was the beneficiary of HB's will. EB left gifts to four charities, and the claimant sought to effect a deed of variation so that Inheritance Tax would not be paid on the gifts. The Chancery Division held that, on the proper interpretation of the relevant criteria, the deed would be made. 

Easement – Right of way. The Chancery Division held that rights of way over land, as claimed by the claimants, had not been granted to them expressly, pursuant to s 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925, nor by any process of implication. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Contempt of court – Breach of court order. The claimant applied for a declaration that the European Commission was in contempt of court. The Administrative Court considered whether its grant of interim relief had any binding effect on the Commission or the courts of another member state and, if not, whether the Commission was under any duty to respect the order. It concluded that nothing done by the Commission outside the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales could amount to a contempt of court under English law, and further set out its views on the scope of the duty of sincere cooperation. The court refused a declaration, although the Commission's conduct had been, in some respects, open to criticism. 

Environment – Protection. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals against conviction by a company and one of its directors who were found guilty of offences relating to keeping of controlled waste, and also the company's appeal against sentence, the court rejected contentions that the sheriff failed to give a direction on an essential fact requiring to be proved, that his directions were contradictory and incomprehensible, that the Crown had failed to prove that the company was not operating under an exemption, and that the fine of £200,000 imposed on the company was excessive. 

Defamation – Communication – Defence of veritas. Court of Session: In an action in which a former MP's office manager asserted that he had defamed her in statements alleging criminal misconduct and impugning her honesty, the court held that the defender had communicated the statements to persons other than the pursuer, they were not in substance true, and were made maliciously, and therefore the pursuer had proved that the defender had defamed her. An appropriate award for solatium was £15,000.