Latest Cases

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The defendant Secretary of State decided that the claimant Chinese national had not basis of stay in the United Kingdom. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision. Before the hearing, the Secretary of State made very late disclosure of material including case record sheets (the records). Allowing the claim, the Administrative Court held that there had been an inconsistency between the information in the records and the Secretary of State's conclusions in her decision letter regarding the claimant's co-operation, reporting record and conduct at the reporting centres. That inconsistency had suggested that in concluding as she had done, the Secretary of State had taken into account matters which had essentially not been supported by the documentary evidence available to her and as such had made a material error. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. RC, a mental health patient decided to embrace the religion of Jehovah Witnesses and therefore refused blood products following a self harming incident. The applicant NHS trust came before the court seeking declarations by the Court of Protection as to RC's capacity to, inter alia, refuse blood products. The Court of Protection held that the court was completely satisfied to declare that RC had full capacity to refuse the administration of blood products and further a decision by RC's doctor, Dr S, to not impose a blood transfusion despite s 63 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was lawful. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Portuguese national had been convicted of and sentenced for cruelty her youngest child. She was subsequently detained under immigration powers between 11 July 2010 and 7 March 2012 pending deportation. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that detention had not been reasonable from 2 September 2011, by which time the Secretary of State could no longer consider that deportation would occur within a reasonable period of time. However, there had been exceptional circumstances which had justified the claimant's detention in the prison estate, including her conviction. 

Child – Protection. Police officers sought to a remove a child from the appellant's address into care, purportedly pursuant to powers contained in s 46 of the Children Act 1989. The initiating officer, M, did not attend and had not briefed the other officers. The appellant was convicted of obstructing a police officer, B, in the execution of his duty. She appealed by way of case stated. Dismissing the appeal, the Divisional Court held that the justices had been entitled to conclude that in the circumstances M had been acting lawfully in relying on s 46 of the Act. Further, it had not been essential for M to have explained to the other officers the nature of the significant harm of which he had thought the child had been at risk before B could have sufficient lawful justification for his actions. 

Housing – Homeless person. The claimant's co-tenant had stopped paying rent and they had both fallen into arrears. The claimant refused her landlord's offers to find a new tenant and, after many warnings, the landlord had brought possession proceedings. In dismissing her appeal against the local authority's refusal to provide assistance under Pt 7 of the Housing Act 1996, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the claimant was intentionally homeless. 

Copyright – Infringement. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendants for infringement of his copyright. The judge found that the claimant had licensed the second defendant to use a tool that the claimant had developed, but no wider consent had been given. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the claimant's lies had been fatal to his claim in respect of the activities of the second defendant, but not the first defendant. Further, he had not misdirected himself in law and had arrived at conclusions which had been open to him on the evidence. 

Contract – Damages for breach. The claimant airline issued proceedings for damages following the defendant's termination of contract for maintenance of the claimant's aircraft. In dismissing the defendant's appeal, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the judge had not erred in proceeding, for the purposes of determining damages, on the basis that the defendant had shown, or the claimant could have assumed, that the defendant could and would have performed its obligations under the contract. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of cl 1 and 2.4 of the framework agreement on parental leave, set out in the annex to Council Directive (EC) 96/34. The request had been made in proceedings between Lyreco Belgium NV and the respondent concerning the calculation of the fixed-sum protective award payable to her because of her unlawful dismissal during part-time parental leave. 

Patent – Infringement. The claimant company owned a European patent for a method of manufacturing barrage units for flood defence. It brought proceedings, claiming that the defendants had infringed the patent. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court considered, as a preliminary issue, whether there was an inventive step in the activities to which elements of its claim related. The court held that there was no inventive step, and hence the claim would be dismissed. 

Libel and slander – Fair comment. The first claimant well-known singer and television personality, and the second defendant professional footballer issued defamation proceedings against the defendant for an article published in its newspaper and on its website. The newspaper sought a determination that the words complained of were not capable of bearing the meaning attributed to them by the claimants. The Queen's Bench Division held that the two meanings pleaded by the first claimant were in fact one, which was defamatory and a statement of fact. The words complained of, in so far as they referred to the second claimant, bore a meaning which was substantially that which he attributed to them.