Latest Cases

Immigration – Deportation – Right to respect for private and family life – Refusal of leave to appeal. Court of Session: Granting a petition seeking judicial review of a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) refusing permission to appeal against a decision of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissing an appeal against a decision that the petitioner did not fall within an exception to the requirement to make a deportation order in respect of a 'foreign criminal', the court concluded that the FTT denied the petitioner the right to a fair hearing and the UT erred in holding that the grounds he advanced disclosed no arguable error in the FTT's decision. 

Costs – Security for costs. In the course of litigation regarding insurance on a vessel, the claimant companies failed to comply with an order for security for costs, providing the security on the day after the time period for doing so ran out. The defendant companies refused to accept the security. Both parties made applications to the Commercial Court. The court held, in allowing the claimants' application to allow the stay to be lifted, that the case was not such that the principles in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 314 (Nov) would apply, and that the default had been trivial. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant dislocated her kneecap whilst travelling on a bus. Eventually an ambulance came. However there had been a delay and the defendant admitted liability in respect of 17 minutes of the delay. The claimant brought an action for personal injury for PTSD in respect of the incident. The Queen's Bench Division held that there had been a causative link between the defendant's admitted negligence and the claimant's PTSD and the dissociative seizures which occurred as a result. The appropriate award for general damages was £60,000. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant local authority's challenge to the first defendant Secretary of State's decision to grant outline planning permission to the third defendant developer as the inspector appointed by the Secretary of State had been guilty of no error of law in his report. 

Company – Minority shareholder. The Chancery Division considered the issue of whether the claimant would be allowed to continue an action against the first defendant as a derivative claim on behalf of and for the benefit of the second and third defendant companies. The court held that the claimant had failed to satisfy it that the proposed derivative action fell within the exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843)67 ER 189, and so the application would be dismissed. 

Employment – Wrongful dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered the fairness of the dismissal of SH, an employee, after he was found, among other things, to have had sexual relations with another member of staff on company grounds. The EAT held that the employment tribunal had erred in its approach to the issues, and hence the appeal would be allowed. However, it was possible to make a determination on liability, and on the evidence, SH's dismissal had been fair. 

Extradition – Extradition order. Dismissing the appellants' appeal against the district judge's decision to extradite them pursuant to Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, the Divisional Court held that none of the matters relied on by the appellants in the instant case had significantly lessened the public interest in the appellants' extradition. Nor in the circumstances of the case would the public interest in extradition be outweighed by an interference with the appellants' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

European Union – Taxation. The provisions of Eighth Council Directive (EEC) 79/1072 (the Eighth Directive), read together with arts 38, 171 and 195 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112, as amended, should be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person established in one member state and who had made supplies of electricity to taxable dealers established in another member state had the right to rely on the Eighth Directive in the latter state in order to obtain a refund of input VAT. That right was not precluded merely by the designation of a tax representative who had been identified for VAT purposes in the latter state. 

Road traffic – Regulation of traffic. In March 2013, the defendant local authority issued two experimental traffic regulation orders (the orders) pursuant to its powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (the 1984 Act). The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant disabled individual's application for a statutory review of the orders under para 35 of Sch 9 to the 1984 Act as, inter alia, the authority had discharged its duty to have to regard to the relevant matters under s 149 of the Equality Act 2010. 

Costs – Security for costs. The claimants brought an action in libel against the defendants. The defendants pleaded justification and qualified privilege. The third defendant applied for security for costs. The Queen's Bench Division, having regard to CPR 25.13, granted to order to the third defendant in respect of the second and third claimants but not in respect of the first claimant.