Latest Cases

Immigration – Removal. The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to make directions for his administrative removal, in the exercise of her discretion under s 10(1)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and of her decision to remove him from the jurisdiction. Allowing the claim, the Administrative Court held that there had been no evidence that the Secretary of State had appreciated that she had been exercising a discretion, rather than taking action which had followed automatically from her belief that there had been a breach of the claimant's visa. 

Employment – Continuity. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the appellant's appeal held that, applying settled law, a transferring company had not been under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner where there had been no such appointment and that, accordingly, there had been a transfer of undertakings between the appellant and the transferring company under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246. 

Claimant companies owning land – Claimants leasing land to third party. The claimant companies owned land that they leased to a company which sought to carry out preliminary drilling in preparation for 'fracking' excavations. The second and fifth defendants were individuals staying on the land as part of a protest against fracking. The claimants applied for possession of the land. The Chancery Division held that the claimants owned the land in question, and that the rights of the defendants under the European Convention on Human Rights had not been infringed by the claimants' application for possession. 

Income tax – Corporation tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the taxpayer's appeal against a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to reject the joint election pursuant to s 171A of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 made by the taxpayer and another company within the same corporate group (GR) to deem the disposal of certain loan notes issued by a third party company to the taxpayer as having been made by GR rather than the taxpayer. 

Counsel – Disciplinary jurisdiction. The claimant barrister sought judicial review of the defendant Office for Legal Complaint's (the Legal Ombudsman) finding that complaints of his former client had been made out. The Administrative Court held that the Legal Ombudsman's findings that the claimant had been obstructive, offensive and unprofessional had not been Wednesbury unreasonable. The client's complaint had not been new and the claimant had had an opportunity to address it. Further, the claimant's complaints of bias had not been established. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The claimant issued proceedings for defamation against the defendant, who applied for an adjournment to issue an application to strike out the claim as an abuse of process. The Queen's Bench Division held that it was required to determine the meaning of the words complained of, and that would not preclude an application to strike out. Notwithstanding that the words complained of portrayed the claimant as a victim, the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in the instant case was defamatory. 

Judge – High Court. In the course of proceedings, it became clear that the deputy judge and the claimant's counsel in the instant case were working together as leading and junior counsel in another case. The defendant made an application for the deputy judge to recuse herself from the proceedings. The Chancery Division held that, in the circumstances, the application would be refused because no fair minded informed observer would think that there was a real possibility that the deputy judge would lean in the claimant's favour against the weight of the evidence. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The claimant, D, was injured in a road accident and lacked the mental capacity to conduct proceedings on her own behalf. She issued proceedings against the road user who had injured her, and was not represented by a litigation friend. She was persuaded to settle the claim for a grossly undervalued sum. The Supreme Court held that D had lacked the capacity to commence and conduct proceedings. She ought to have had a litigation friend from the outset, and any settlement ought to have been approved by the court under CPR 21.10(1). The consent order under which the claim had been settled would be set aside and the claim would go to trial. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following the acceptance of a CPR Pt 36 offer by the defendant on a dilapidations claim arising from a sub-lease, the Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court rejected a claim by the claimant for costs on an indemnity basis. The court held that in the circumstances of the instant case, the claimant had not complied with the Dilapidations Pre-Action Protocol, and as such the 'no loss' defence should have been seen in context. The judge held that he could not decide on disputed versions of events pertaining to the conduct of expert witnesses and it was doubtful whether the mediation proposed by the claimant would have succeeded. 

Wales – Welsh language. National Savings and Investments decided to withdraw its Welsh language scheme. In judicial review proceedings, the Divisional Court held that NS&I had had the power to revoke the scheme. However, the Welsh Language Commissioner had had a legitimate expectation that the defendant would not make any changes to the scheme before consulting her and the consultation that had taken place had fallen short of that expectation. NS&I's decision had, therefore, been unlawful.