Latest Cases

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that: (i) on a proper construction of art 77(1) of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71, a benefit such as the pension for bringing up children provided for in para 47(1) of Book VI of the German Social Security Code (the Code), which was granted, in the event of death, to the former spouse of the deceased for the purposes of bringing up the children of that former spouse, could not be treated in the same way as 'pensions for old age, invalidity or an accident at work or occupational disease' within the meaning of art 77 of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71; and (ii) on a proper construction of art 67 of Regulation (EC) 883/2004, a benefit such as the pension for bringing up children provided for in para 47(1) of Book VI of the Code was covered by the concept of 'pension' within the meaning of art 67. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. Dismissing the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to reject as invalid the claimant's application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 1 (post study work) migrant, the Administrative court held that the Secretary of State had not misinterpreted s 3C of the Immigration Act 1971. 

Will – Mistake. The Chancery Division considered the true construction of a will and determined what assets formed part of the deceased's estate. Applying settled law, there appeared to be a powerful argument that there was a clerical error in naming the wrong company in the will. Further, a claim by the deceased's widow that a declaration of trust and a transfer allegedly made by the deceased to the benefit of his son were a sham was rejected 

Sale of land – Price. The claimant company (Aodhcon) sought to renovate and sell a property. It took out a loan with the defendant bridging loan company (Bridgeco). The loan ran out and Bridgeco sold the property. Aodhcon brought proceedings, contending, among other things, that Bridgeco had sold the property at too low a price in breach of duty. The Chancery Division held that there had been no breach of duty, and that Bridgeco's selling decisions had been within an acceptable margin of error. 

Natural justice – Magistrates. The claimant was convicted of an offence under s 112(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 as she had not notified the interested party local authority of a material change in her circumstances sufficiently promptly. The claimant's appeal was dismissed by the defendant Crown Court. The Divisional Court allowed the claimant's claim for judicial review of the Crown Court's decision as the judge in the magistrates' court had adopted an unfair approach. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant had arrived in the United Kingdom and claimed asylum. There was a delay of almost ten years in processing his application. He was granted discretionary leave to remain for three years. He sought judicial review of that decision. The Administrative Court held that there was no specific policy which had created an exception to the normal grant of discretionary leave to remain, not indefinite leave to remain, where an applicant had been present in the UK for a long time awaiting a decision of the Secretary of State. The claimant's circumstances had not been exceptional such as to have invoked the Secretary of State's residual discretion to depart from the Immigration Rules. 

Patent – Infringement. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant for patent infringement in respect of a patent for a deep fryer. The Patents Court held that some of the claims had been infringed. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The local authority became concerned about an elderly lady G an applied to the court in respect of her mental capacity under the Mental Health Act 2005, the Court of Protection held that G lacked capacity under the provisions of the 2005 Act and that further investigation needed to be carried out to decide how her best interests would be met and her comfort and safety assured. 

Disclosure – Disclosure of documents. After a search warrant was executed at the defendant's premises, a judge ordered the disclosure of the information laid before the justices in support of the application for the search warrant and notes made by the legal adviser to the justices. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner appealed by way of case stated. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had had jurisdiction to hear the disclosure application, but had not applied the correct procedure. Further, the exercise undertaken by the judge had not amounted to a proper balancing exercise and the public interest in withholding the information was clearly stronger than that served by ordering disclosure. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Sierra Leonean national sought by way of judicial review to challenge the validity of a deportation order signed by the first defendant Secretary of State and his detention pursuant to that order. He also sought judicial review of the second defendant Upper Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber)'s decision to refuse him permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber) (FTT) to refuse him permission to appeal against the Secretary of State's decision to refuse to grant him an EEA residence card. Dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that the deportation order had not been invalid because the claimant had been outside the United Kingdom when it had been signed. Further, at no point had the claimant's detention been or become unlawful. Finally, art 27 of Directive (EC) 2005/38 did not extend to 'other family members' (OFMSs), such as the claimant.