Latest Cases

Feeds

Warsame v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed the respondent's original appeal from the appellant Secretary of State's decision to deport him and allowed the Secretary of State's appeal against a determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). In the light of Secretary of State for the Home Department v MG ([2014] All ER (D) 124 (Jan)), a decision based on FV (Italy) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2013] 1 All ER 1180) could not be sustained. 

Garnat Trading & Shipping (Singapore) v Thomas Cooper (A firm)

Solicitor – Retainer. The Chancery Division considered the enforceability of a contract between the claimant company, Garnat, and its solicitors, TC. The court held that the retainer between the parties, as amended by an agreement made whilst representing Garnat in an appeal, was partly unenforceable. The unenforceable provisions could be severed. It followed that TC was entitled to charge Garnat for any work falling within the scope of the retainer, excluding the appeal. 

Clark v Greater Glasgow Health Board

Medical negligence – Childbirth – Application to amend. Court of Session: In an action for damages in respect of hypoxic brain injury suffered at birth in which it was alleged that the oxygen supply to the pursuer's brain in utero was impaired because her mother's womb ruptured because her labour was negligently mismanaged, and in which, following proof, the pursuer enrolled a motion seeking to allow a minute of amendment proposing a new risk disclosure case to be received, the court refused the pursuer's motion, holding that an adequate explanation had not been offered for bringing the risk disclosure case so late, and it was not reasonable, equitable and in the interests of justice to allow the new case to be added. 

WebMindLicenses Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Foigazgatóság

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2(1)(c), 24(1), 43 and 273 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112, of Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, of art 4(3) TEU and arts 49, 56 and 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and of arts 7, 8, 41, 47, 48, 51 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between WebMindLicenses Kft. and the Hungarian National Tax and Customs Authority, Principal Directorate of Taxes and Customs for Major Taxpayers concerning a decision by the latter ordering the payment of various sums in tax relating to the tax years 2009 to 2011 as well as of a fine and of penalties for late payment. 

Hunt v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust

Negligence – Duty of care. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant patient succeeded in his claim in negligence against the defendant NHS Trust who had employed the surgeon who had performed an operation on him. The court decided that defendant had not established that, absent incontinence, the claimant would have had a colostomy. 

Davis v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Trespass to the person – Battery. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's application for damages and declaratory relief against the defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner for battery, negligence and breach of his right to life, under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (art 2), brought as a result of being shot by an officer. The claimant had been shot in lawful self-defence, the police had not owed him a duty of care and art 2 had not been violated by the shooting or the planning and conduct of the operation. 

Cosmetic Warriors Ltd and another v Gerrie and another

Company – Articles of association. The Chancery Division held that the proper construction of the claimant companies' articles of association had been to value the defendants' minority shareholdings on the basis of a pro rata proportion of the value of the whole equity of the claimants. In addition to publicly available information, the accountants undertaking the valuation of the shares were also entitled to further available information which related to the companies. 

Solicitors Regulation Authority v Spector; Solicitors Regulation Authority v Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

Solicitor – Disciplinary proceedings. The Divisional Court allowed the Solicitors Regulation Authority's appeal against the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the SDT), granting an anonymity order against a solicitor found guilty of one of seven offences, which was considered a minor matter and at the lowest level. The SDT's decision had been contrary to principle and it had also not been one which it could rationally have made on the facts of the case. However, the SDT's decision, refusing the solicitor his costs against the SRA, was upheld. 

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Vassallo

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the Secretary of State's appeal in a deportation case, held that, although the tribunals below had been wrong to conclude that the respondent Italian national had acquired a right of permanent residence in the United Kingdom, under reg 15 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1003, the error had not been material to the outcome and there was, therefore, no basis upon which to set aside the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). 

Ogelegbanwei (for himself and on behalf of the Oporoza community) and 52 others v President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and others

Constitutional law – Foreign sovereign state. The Queen's Bench Division ordered that a Nigerian judgment, which awarded the claimants special damages for the equivalent of approximately £400m, be registered against the third defendant as a judgment in the Queen's Bench Division. However, the court dismissed the claimants' application to register the judgment against the first and second defendants, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Attorney General of the Federation respectively, where, on the true construction of the State Immunity Act 1978, the first and second defendants were immune from the jurisdiction of the court. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

Investment in justice

The Bar Council will press for investment in justice at party conferences, the Chancellor’s Budget and Spending Review

Job of the Week

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases