Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Iranian nationals were failed asylum seekers who challenged the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to remove the first claimant and refuse the second claimant leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claims, held that the first claimant's case had been concluded for the legacy programme purposes by his departure from the United Kingdom. With respect to the second claimant, the Secretary of State had weighed the length of residence and delay appropriately in coming to the concluded decision that no exceptional grant of leave could be justified and removal had been appropriate. 

Criminal evidence – Sufficiency of evidence. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal against a conviction for being concerned in the supplying of a controlled drug, the court held that there was, by the close of the Crown case, ample evidence to entitle the trial judge to repel a no case to answer submission by the appellant's counsel. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition challenging the refusal of the petitioner's application for leave to remain in the UK as the spouse of a UK national, the court rejected the contention that the decision was erroneous in law because the decision maker had conflated the British nationality of the petitioner's spouse with the question of whether there were insurmountable obstacles to relocation and had not considered those factors in the context of a 'good arguable case'. 

Solicitor – Costs. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant company's claim for judicial review, holding that: the Legal Ombudsman had jurisdiction to entertain a complaint in relation to the quantum of fees contractually due; the complaint to the Ombudsman had not been out of time as time ran from the point at which an invoice was received; and the decision was not irrational. 

Civil procedure – Pleadings. Sheriff Court: Refusing an appeal in an action in which a sheriff found the pursuer entitled to payment by the defenders of £25,500 under the terms of a contractual bonus scheme, the court held that the pleadings were not capable of the construction that the pursuer had admitted the variation of the contract averred by the defenders, and that the sheriff had not erred in finding that he had satisfactorily established the quantum of his loss to the required standard. 

Court of Appeal – Practice. The claimant sought permission to appeal against the refusal of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) (the UT) to set aside its decision refusing to grant the claimant permission to appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the application, held that there could be no appeal to the court from a refusal of the UT to review its decision to refuse permission to appeal. 

Prison – Release on licence. The claimants issued proceedings challenging the continuing failure of the defendant Secretary of State to make adequate provision for approved premises to accommodate women prisoners approaching the date on which they would be considered for release on licence. They contended that he had engaged in direct and indirect discrimination, and had breached the public sector equality duty. The Administrative Court held that the Secretary of State had not discriminated, directly or indirectly, in the performance of his functions of providing approved premises for women. However, he had not undertaken the analysis necessary to fulfil his equality duty. 

Arbitration – Appeal. An arbitration tribunal held that the claimant had breached a contract by failing to supply steel, as agreed, to the defendant and it awarded the defendant a sum in damages. The claimant appealed. The Commercial Court held that, on the facts, the claimant's challenges to the tribunal's jurisdiction and award failed, and its applications under ss 67 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 had to be dismissed. 

Criminal Evidence – Expert evidence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against conviction for one count of manslaughter and two counts of unlawful wounding, held that the challenge to the admissibility of the prosecution expert's evidence had to fail. Further, the fresh evidence tendered was simply not clear or firm enough to afford a ground for allowing the appeal and it would not be received by the court. 

EU law – Rules on competition. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion, the court held that the Lord Ordinary was correct to conclude that the defenders' undertaking not to broadcast Scottish Premier League football matches on TV screens in their pubs on Saturday afternoons ceased to have effect following a decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), so that the pursuers were not entitled to the perpetual interdict they sought; and he was also correct to hold that the defenders' averments in their counterclaim, seeking declarator that the pursuers were in breach of EU competition rules, were sufficiently relevant for a proof before answer.