Latest Cases

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Secretary of State's appeal, held that the respondent Somalian national's circumstances were not such as could preclude his removal to Somalia on grounds under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the evidence could not, in any event, support a finding of fact that the respondent would find himself living in an internally displaced person camp. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by August Srotck KG against a decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office concerning an application by that company for registration of a figurative sign as an European Union trade mark. 

Negligence – Liability. The Queen's Bench Division in a clinical negligence case in relation to an unsuccessful eye operation dismissed the claimant's case against the defendant NHS Trust on the basis of the defendant's case that the vitreous on the claimant's left eye remained attached and that was sufficient for the defendant's case to prevail on the issue of breach of duty. 

European Union – Directives. The Court of Justice of the European Union determined that provisions of European Parliament and Council Directive (EU) 2014/40, which prohibited the placing on the market of tobacco products with a characterising flavour, were valid and dismissed the applicant's claim for a declaration of invalidity. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The Privy Council dismissed both an appeal and a cross-appeal concerning the respondent's dismissal from his employment with the appellant. It considered whether there had been constructive dismissal, whether the respondent's conduct had justified dismissal, and whether the Supreme Court of Mauritius had miscalculated the remuneration package. 

Family proceedings – Care order. The Family Division granted a care order in respect of a Lithuanian child living in the United Kingdom, having found that the best option was for the child to remain in long-term foster care with his current carers. 

Bankruptcy – Property available for distribution. The Bankruptcy High Court allowed an application for relief by trustees in the bankruptcy of DD, who had made his living from residential and commercial property and was indebted to around the sum of £2.8m. The court held that money in certain accounts belonged to DD, that a flat which had been purchased out of money from one of the accounts was a bankruptcy asset, and that the transfer of shares in a company controlled by DD had been a sham. 

Highway – Definitive map. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's challenge to the decision of the inspector for the defendant Secretary of State, confirming the local planning authority's order modifying the area definitive rights of way map to show footpaths, with a modification. The evidence provided a rational basis for the inspector's conclusion and his conclusion had not needed more extensive reasoning. 

Town and country planning – Building of special architectural or historic interest. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a challenge by way of judicial review regarding the proposed Ordsall Chord elevated railway in Manchester. Neither the planning inspector in recommending the scheme, nor the Secretaries of State in having approved the scheme, had failed to act consistently with a decision maker's statutory duties relating to listed buildings and conservation areas and nor had the Secretaries of State misunderstood or misapplied relevant national policy and guidance. 

Sentencing – Road traffic offences – Causing death by dangerous driving. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing a Crown appeal against the 4-year sentence of imprisonment, discounted from 6 years, which was imposed on a respondent who pled guilty to an offence of causing death by dangerous driving, the contention being that the sentence was unduly lenient, the court concluded that the judge's selection of a headline sentence of 6 years' imprisonment could not be said to fall outwith the range of disposals open to him, nor had he erred in selecting the level of discount which he did.