Latest Cases

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellant Sri Lankan had been refused asylum in the United Kingdom. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had allowed his appeal but, on re-making the decision, refused the appeal. The appellant appealed. The Secretary of State conceded that, based on the errors of the Upper Tribunal and the new country guidance for Sri Lanka, the appeal should be allowed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, remitted the matter for a rehearing. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held, amongst other things, that in the correct interpretation of reg 38(1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007, the words 'knowingly' and 'permit' related to knowledge of the facts and not as to the existence and scope of the permission or conditions of a licence. The prosecution did not have to show that a defendant knew that the matters of which it was aware were not permitted. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, on allowing a defendant's appeal, ordered the re-hearing of a confiscation hearing on the issue of benefit in circumstances where there had been a misunderstanding on the judge's part of the defendant's position on that issue. The defendant had not conceded the prosecutor's benefit figure nor, alternatively, had the judge, in the circumstances, been entitled so to find. In consequence, the defendant neither gave evidence, nor addressed argument to the judge, upon the benefit issue. For that reason, the confiscation hearing had been tainted with unfairness and the judge's ruling on that matter would be quashed. 

Will – testator. The Chancery Division considered the validity of two wills made by an elderly woman who had suffered from dementia and blindness. It held it would pronounce in favour of her first will, made in 2004, but would pronounce against her second will, which had been made in 2007, on the grounds that she had lacked the capacity to understand the changes that it contained. 

Employment – Employee. The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the interpretation of s 10 of the Employment Appeal Act 1999 in the light of the case of Toal & Hughes v GB Oils Ltd[2013] IRLR 696. Although it allowed the employee's appeal in part, it held that the tribunal had not erred in its interpretation of the Act, in finding that the employee's rights had not been infringed by the employer's refusal to allow him to be accompanied by a certain individual at a disciplinary hearing. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 (on insolvency proceedings). The request had been made in the context of a dispute between Mr Schmid, acting as liquidator of the assets of Ms Zimmermann and Ms Hertel, who was resident in Switzerland, concerning an action to set a transaction aside. 

Mental health – Prisoner. The claimant was detained under s 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 at a medium security hospital. Following an incident, he was referred for transfer to a high security hospital. Despite requests, the claimant's legal representative was not given the documents that were put before the panel and was not permitted to attend the hearing. Nevertheless, the claimant was given opportunities to put his side of events forward in meetings. His representative declined to make any representations before the panel meeting despite hearing an overview from the claimant. The claimant's transfer was approved, and he issued proceedings for judicial review. In allowing the defendant health trust's appeal, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, on the evidence, there had not been a breach of common-law principles of procedural fairness. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employment tribunal had erred in concluding that, because its decision to cease to provide business development services had been driven by financial considerations and the need to reduce costs, there had been no redundancy situation and that the employee had been dismissed by reason of redundancy. On the facts there had been a redundancy situation and the employee had been fairly dismissed. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) allowed the appeal brought by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in which OHIM requested that the Court should set aside the judgment in Case T‑278/10 Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM – Lidl Stiftung (WESTERN GOLD) [2012] ECR II‑0000. In that judgment the General Court of the European Union had annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM concerning opposition proceedings between Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Lidl), in respect of the application by Lidl to register the word sign 'WESTERN GOLD' as a Community trade mark. 

Deed – Rectification. The Chancery Division considered the best way to progress a claim for rectification of a deed. It held that, in the circumstances, it would be appropriate to adjourn the action to enable the claimant and the Revenue to consider how best to proceed.