Latest Cases

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of his immigration detention and the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of accommodation under s 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. On the evidence, the claimant could have accommodated himself, and the Secretary of State had correctly judged when the time had come for release and had not acted unlawfully in having failed to release the claimant earlier. 

Guarantee – Misrepresentation. A bank sought to enforce two limited guarantees signed by the defendant, as security for facilities provided by the bank to a property development company owned by the defendant and his son. The defendant contended that he was entitled to rescind the guarantees on the grounds of misrepresentation and economic duress. The Chancery Division, in granting the bank's claim, and in dismissing the counterclaim, held that, whilst, in principle, a statement by a bank or other financial institution that it wanted to increase its exposure in a particular business sector might, if untrue, be capable of providing the basis for a claim in misrepresentation, the defendant had, on the facts, failed to establish that defence or economic duress. 

Practice – Application. The claimant bank sought Norwich Pharmacal orders against a number of persons to whom payments had been made in error. The Chancery Division held that, excluding some of the personal details sought, the orders would be granted. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against a costs order made at the conclusion of intellectual property litigation where the parties had incurred substantial costs. The court held, amongst other things, that the judge had rightly identified three aspects of the final order which had represented substantial improvements on a Calderbank offer made during the course of the proceedings and that it would not justify a departure from the usual rule that, if there was any order as to costs, the costs should be paid by the unsuccessful party. 

Immigration – Asylum – Victim of trafficking. Court of Session: In judicial review proceedings by a Nigerian asylum seeker who claimed to be a victim of trafficking and forced prostitution, seeking reduction of decisions to certify her asylum claim as one appropriately requiring removal to Italy and to issue removal directions, the court held that, on the basis that the transfer provisions of Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003 ('Dublin II') were engaged the Secretary of State had failed to exercise the residual discretion available under art 3(2) of Dublin II by considering the risk that the petitioner's rights under art 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be breached on return to Italy by exposure once again to forced prostitution. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The appellant solicitors appealed against the judge's finding of negligence and award of damages to the respondent client on the basis of the loss of a chance of further recovery in his claim for services required as a consequence of his disability. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge's findings on causation were unassailable. If properly advised, there would have been no sensible reason for the respondent not to pursue the services claim. Further, it was inherently implausible that the respondent had given up the services claim because he had realised that it had been based on exaggeration at least verging on dishonesty. 

Barrister – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant barrister was charged with four offences of professional misconduct by the respondent Bar Standards Board. He was unable to attend the hearing and his application for an adjournment was refused by the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Courts (the tribunal). The hearing proceeded in his absence, and he was disbarred and fined. The appellant appealed against the refusal of an adjournment. The Divisional Court, in allowing his appeal, held that the tribunal had misdirected itself on the approach to be applied when determining whether to grant an adjournment. 

Pension – Equal treatment of men and women. The appellant male-to-female transsexual had not applied for a gender recognition certificate, as she did not wish to annul her existing marriage. Her application for a state pension at the pensionable age for a woman was refused on the basis that she was a man. The First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) and the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) dismissed her appeals. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the requirement to annul her marriage did not breach the principle of equal treatment in Council Directive (EEC) 79/7 and was not discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010. 

Design – Design right. The claimant brought proceedings against his brother, the first defendant, and the second defendant for infringement of a United Kingdom registered design and of UK unregistered design rights in respect of a contact lens cleaning device. A judge had found that the unregistered design rights relied on by the claimant had been infringed by sales by the second defendant of two products and he ordered an account in relation to the sales of one product. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, having considered the relevant profit made by the first claimant from the sale of the product, held that he was liable to pay the claimant the sum of £15,800. 

Shipping – Charterparty. A dispute arose about the alleged extending of a charterparty of a vessel. Considering anticipatory breach to have occurred, the owners sought to accept the breach and sold the vessel. By the time of the hearing, it was apparent that there was a significant difference in the value of the vessel when the owners sold it and November 2009, when the vessel would have been redelivered to owners had the charterers not been in breach of the charterparty. The Commercial Court held that the owners had not been required to give any credit for any benefit in realising the capital value of the vessel in October 2007, when the owners had arranged to sell it.