Latest Cases

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Indian national sought judicial review of seven decisions of the defendant Secretary of State: (i) certifying her asylum claim as clearly unfounded; (ii) issuing removal directions; (iii) dismissing her further submissions, including with respect to her mental health and internal relocation, as not constituting fresh claims; and (iv) maintaining the certification of her claim as clearly unfounded. The Administrative Court dismissed the application on the facts of the case. 

Arrest – Arrest without warrant. In considering the claimants' appeals in respect of whether their arrest and detention had been lawful under art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the police actions had been lawful by reason of art 5(1)(c) of the Convention. The arrest and detention had been with the intention of bringing the claimant detainees before the competent legal authority at the time of arrest. Accordingly, their appeals were dismissed. 

Employment – Dismissal. In allowing the employer's appeal against the employment tribunal's (the tribunal) finding of unfair dismissal following a positive drugs test by the employee, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had fallen into error in eliding the two questions of the reason for dismissal and the fairness of the dismissal for that reason. In the present case, the tribunal had wrongly substituted its mindset for that of the employer. 

Employment – Victimisation. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) had upheld a claim against Western Union Payment Services UK Ltd, in which the employee had alleged detriments caused by a protected disclosure pursuant to s 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In allowing the appeal in part, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had failed to demonstrate a causal link between the disclosure and the detriments, and had erred in failing to allow the parties an opportunity to make representations on the re-casting of allegations and amended list of issues contained in the tribunal's judgment. 

Minor – Maintenance. The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) found that the claimant professional gambler was obliged to pay child support maintenance on the First-tier Tribunal's (Social Security) factual findings that he was 'gainfully employed' as a 'self-employed earner'. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that, on the facts, it could not be said that the claimant had had a sufficient organisation in his poker playing to make it amount to a trade or a business. However, it noted the Secretary of State's comment that there might be a way to compel him to make such contribution by making a 'departure direction'. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. In earlier proceedings, the court sanctioned a scheme of arrangement (the scheme) between Vodafone Group Plc and its shareholders, pursuant to ss 895 to 899 of the Companies Act 2006. The court had also confirmed various reductions of capital contained in the scheme and had made an order dispensing with the settlement of a list of creditors under s 646 of the Act. The Companies Court, having considered recent evidence concerning the financial position of the company held that there was no reason to alter the conclusions reached on 5 February to dispense with settlement of a list of creditors. 

Children and young persons – Court proceedings. The proceedings concerned whether a child, K, should be returned to Malta. In the course of proceedings, the judge carried out a lengthy interview with K. The judge held that K should be returned. The mother appealed. The Court of Appeal, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had erred in allowing the meeting with K to become an exercise in the gathering of evidence. 

Mental health – Patient. The claimant had been released from hospital on conditional discharge. The defendant Secretary of State recalled him to hospital under s 42(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision. His application was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed his appeal. The Secretary of State was not under an obligation to provide written reasons for recall at the time that a warrant for recall was executed. The oral reasons that had been given to the claimant had been sufficient. The Secretary of State's failure to provide adequate reasons within 72 hours had been a breach of art 5.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but that breach had not rendered the detention unlawful either at common law or under art 5.1 of the Convention. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) allowed the claimant's appeal on one ground and failed to consider the second. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the UT had plainly failed to deal with the second point, concerning the principles to be derived from R (on the application of Dirshe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2005] All ER (D) 259 (Apr)), at all. It was not a foregone conclusion that the UT would decide that answers given by the claimant in his initial and screening interviews could properly be given the degree of weight which the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had given them. 

Practice – Parties. In the course of personal welfare proceedings relating to the first respondent 94 year old, Associated Newspapers, sought orders, including that it be joined as an interested party to the proceedings. The Court of Protection, in dismissing the application, held that Associated Newspapers was not involved in a justiciable issue. Further, it did not have 'sufficient interest' in the proceedings and its joinder was not 'desirable'.