Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant, from Pakistan, obtained entry clearance as Tier 4 (General) student until May 2012 to undertake a course, which was subject to the condition, pursuant to s 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1977, prohibiting him from studying at an institution other than the sponsor body. The claimant left the sponsor body and completed his education at another institution. He was subsequently accepted onto a further study course at another institution, to commence July 2012, and applied for further leave to remain. The defendant Secretary of State refused his application and the claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the condition was valid and the claimant was plainly in breach of it. Further, the Secretary of State had not acted unfairly in refusing the application. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between You-View.tv, established in Belgium, and YouView TV Ltd, established in the United Kingdom, concerning the application by the latter company for registration of a word mark 'YouView+' as a Community trade mark. 

Crown – Prerogative. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the Project Management Institute's appeal against the dismissal of its application for judicial review of the decision by a committee of the Privy Council to recommend to the Queen in Council that a Royal Charter should be granted to the Association for Project Management. The judge had reached the right conclusion on the substantive grounds of challenge to the decision. 

Damages – Entitlement to damages. The claimants were the tenants of a restaurant. A fire occurred at the restaurant, which was caused by contractors working for the landlord, P. The claimants commenced proceedings against P, seeking a range of remedies including the award of exemplary damages. The Chancery Division held that the claimants were entitled to be placed in the position that they would have been in had the fire not occurred, namely in occupation of restaurant premises with a working kitchen. Exemplary damages were not awarded. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant's extradition to Spain was sought to face trial for terrorism-related offences allegedly occurring in 1991. The judge ordered his extradition and the appellant appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the domestic courts should be extremely reluctant to engage in evaluating the competing arguments about the local law of limitation in the requesting state and the judge had adequately considered the issue. Further, whatever the history might have been, the appellant would not be subject to torture on his return to Spain and would receive a trial that met the requirements of art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Damages – Assessment. The claimants, JXL and SXC were sisters. In 1989 when they were children the Defendant raped them. They brought an action for personal injury and judgment was entered in default. The instant case was an assessment for damages payable by the defendant to the claimants. The Queen's Bench Division held that the general damages to be awarded were JXL, £32,500 and SXC, 40,000 with a total award of £131,674 going to JXL and £232,360 going to SXC. 

Divorce – Decree nisi. In divorce proceedings, following a petition for divorce made by the wife, a decree nisi was granted when the husband failed to respond to the petition. He sought to set the decree nisi aside. The Court of Appeal, in allowing the appeal, held that it would be necessary to return the matter to the county court. The court considered the appropriate approach to situations under the Family Procedure Rules 2010, where a party sought to set aside a certificate. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. A football stadium was subject to a planning condition that only three music events could be held there per year, only one of which could fall on a Sunday. The second defendant local authority and the first defendant Secretary of State's planning inspector refused the claimant's application to vary that condition to increase the number of music events held at the stadium. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no error of law in the decision. 

Company – Distribution of assets. M built up a considerable business involving property and entertainment ventures. When he died, his business was split between the parties. A dispute arose and the claimants brought proceedings against P, M's brother. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that P had not, among other things, been in breach of contract, nor had he acted negligently. 

Insolvency – Bankruptcy. The first defendant appealed against the entry of judgment against him on the basis that the claimant had failed to disclose his bankruptcy, which had occurred after the start of proceedings, but before judgment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the first defendant's appeal had been founded on the false premises that the bankruptcy order had immediately deprived the claimant of his cause of action. The first defendant had failed to show that the claimant's property had passed to a trustee in bankruptcy before judgment, and that the claimant had known that the official receiver had become trustee, that his estate had become vested in the official receiver and that that had been so before judgment had been entered.