Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. An application for leave to remain which the applicant was not permitted to make under s 3C(4) of the Immigration Act 1971 did not extend the applicant's leave under s 3C(2) because the Secretary of State refused that application on its merits, rather than rejecting it as invalid. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant Pakistani national's appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), dismissing his application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's refusal of further leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant.

Criminal evidence – Examination of accused. The judge's repeated interruption during the defendant's examination-in-chief by pursuing lines of questioning which were unnecessary and improper, were not so significant as to materially impair the defendant's ability to give his account of the events. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against his conviction for rape, further held that the judge's conduct in that respect, in itself or in combination with deficiencies in the summing up, had not deprived the defendant of a fair trial or made his conviction unsafe.

European Union – Insurance. In a case relating to the recovery of insurance proceeds, paid following the sinking of a vessel, the judge had not erred in holding that the tort element of the claimant underwriters' claim against the defendant bank could proceed in the English courts, but that the English court had no jurisdiction to entertain the underwriters' claim in restitution against the bank. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the underwriters' appeal and the bank's cross-appeal.

European Union – Transport. Article 23(1) in conjunction with art 2(18) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 should be interpreted as meaning that, when indicating air fares for intra-Community air services, air carriers who did not express those fares in euros were required to choose a local currency that was objectively linked to the service offered. That was the case in particular of the currency which was legal tender in the member state in which the place of departure or arrival of the flight was located. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the indication by the respondent air carrier, established in Germany, of air fares in pounds sterling for a flight from London to Stuttgart.

Tort – Liability. In a fraudulent misrepresentation claim, the judge by determining that it was fair just and reasonable for liability to be imposed on the agent's principle in all the circumstances of the case, had applied the wrong legal test for determining ostensible authority. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, accordingly determined that the only fair and proper course was to remit for re-hearing the issue as to whether W was vicariously liable on the basis of R's ostensible authority.

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant's claim against the defendant for defamation was struck out and the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant was entitled to rely on previous observations made by various judges that the claimant was a vexatious claimant who had commenced multiple actions which had been characterised as being without merit. The defendant was thus entitled to plead and prove the whole of the claimant's litigious conduct by way of justification. However, even if the decisions and observations of the other judges had been inadmissible for the purposes of establishing the defence of justification, the source materials that underpinned those decisions and observations were still admissible as hearsay.

European Union – Employment. Article 1(2) of Council Directive (EEC) 86/653 should be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a person who had continuing authority to negotiate the sale or the purchase of goods on behalf of another person, or to negotiate and conclude such transactions on behalf of and in the name of that person, performed his activities from the latter's business premises did not prevent him from being classified as a 'commercial agent' within the meaning of that provision, provided that that fact did not prevent that person from performing his activities in an independent manner, which was for the referring court to ascertain. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the payment for services and commission following the breach of an agreement between two companies.

Bank – Declaration. The Bank of New York Mellon, London Branch, failed in its application for declarations against the defendant company, Essar Steel India Ltd, concerning the amounts due and payable in respect of certain unsecured notes issued by the defendant, which were governed by a trust deed. The Financial List held that, on the facts of the case, it would be inappropriate to make the declarations sought, because if they were to have an effect on Indian insolvency proceedings concerning the defendant, that would amount to an improper interference in a foreign process being conducted by a party not before the court, namely the insolvency resolution professional appointed in respect of the Indian insolvency proceedings.

European Union – Employment. Article 1(3) of Directive (EC) 2003/88, read in conjunction with art 2(2) of Directive (EEC) 89/391, had to be interpreted as meaning that the work performed by a foster parent under an employment contract with a public authority, which consisted in taking in a child, integrating that child into his or her household and ensuring, on a continuous basis, the harmonious upbringing and education of that child, did not come within the scope of Directive 2003/88. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning a request made by some foster parents to receive an increase in their base salary in respect of work performed, among other things, during statutory leave and public holidays.

Costs – Security for costs. The claimant company's application for security for costs in respect of an application by the fourth defendant company (Berenger) failed. Berenger had applied to discharge an order appointing receivers over the second defendant company. While there had been delay on the part of Berenger, that delay had not enabled the claimant to demonstrate abuse by Berenger in the sense of lack of will to litigate in accordance with the overriding objective.