Immigration – European Economic Area nationals. The effect of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1003, was that an extended family member acquired a right of permanent residence under reg 15(1)(b) only if he had resided in the UK with the relevant EEA national for a continuous period of five years since being issued with a residence card. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Secretary of State's appeal, rejected the respondent's contention that time began to run from the start of residence in a durable relationship with an EU citizen partner.
Immigration – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, declared that it had and had always had no jurisdiction to hear the appellants' appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) in Glasgow, dismissing their appeal against the respondent Secretary of State's refusal of leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant. Although Form IA 157 was, in relation to appeals heard in Scotland or Northern Ireland, both a trap for the unwary and defectively drafted, the Court of Session had been specified as the court to which a renewed application for permission to appeal should be brought.
Extradition – Passage of time. The appellant's extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with his rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, be unjust and oppressive due to his health conditions and/or so barred by the Extradition Act 2003 ss 14 and/or s 25. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed his appeal against the order for his extradition to the Netherlands serve the remainder of a sentence of 26 months in relation to four offences described as participation in a criminal organisation and swindling.
Solicitors – Complaints – Vexatious complaint. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal against the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission ('SLCC')'s determination that the appellant's complaint against a solicitor was vexatious and accordingly not eligible for investigation, the court rejected the contention that the SLCC's decision was not supported by the facts it found to be established: on the basis of the facts it found to be established the SLCC was entitled to conclude that there was no basis for the appellant's complaint and that the complaint was vexatious.
Personal injury – Exposure to asbestos – Liability. Court of Session: In an action in which the relatives of a woman who died of mesothelioma sought damages, contending that the defender exposed her to asbestos dust in the course of her employment negligently and/or in breach of statutory duty, the court held that the pursuers had established liability both under s 63(1) of the Factories Act 1961 and at common law as they had proved that the processes undertaken in the defender's foundry during the period of the deceased's employment there created substantial dust, including asbestos dust, to which the deceased was regularly and frequently exposed; her exposure was to an extent likely to be injurious to her, as it ultimately was; that injury was reasonably foreseeable and the defender did nothing to prevent it.