Latest Cases

Trust and trustee – Creation of trust. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimants' application for a declaration that they, among four named trustees, held a property in equal shares. The court held that, on the evidence, the property was held in equal shares by each of the nine children of the purchaser. 

Immigration – Removal. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) refused the claimant permission to seek judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to remove him from the United Kingdom on the ground of deception. It held that the claimant had not established the fundamental prerequisite to a substantive legitimate expectation, namely, a clear and unambiguous promise, or representation, devoid of any ambiguity, conveyed directly or indirectly to him. Further, his case was defeated by the application of the alternative remedy principle. 

National Health Service – General medical services. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant's decision not to conclude any form of interim contract with the claimant concerning the provision of gamma knife treatment for NHS patients at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery pending the completion of its national procurement exercise. The defendant's reasons for having rejected the claimant's proposal had afforded a sustainable basis for not having provided an interim contract with the claimant. 

Extradition – Discharge. The Divisional Court dismissed the United States of America's appeal against the discharge of the respondent from extradition to face trial for 19 charges of sexual assault allegedly committed against an adolescent boy. The requesting state's assurance was insufficient to obviate the risk of a flagrant breach of the respondent's rights under art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the danger of being subjected to a civil commitment order. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the principles applicable to cases where a parent wished to relocate with his or her child within the United Kingdom were the same as those applicable to cases where a parent sought to relocate outside the United Kingdom: namely the welfare of the child was paramount. There was no rule that internal relocation could only be refused in exceptional circumstances, and the proportionality of any interference with a parent's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights should be considered as part of the same balancing exercise, and not separately. 

Judgment – Enforcement. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was entitled to enforce a judgment obtained in the United States against the defendant in the jurisdiction of England and Wales. 

European Union – Enforcement of judgment. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's application for a declaration that the defendant, who had succeeded in proceedings in France, was not entitled to have that judgment recognised or enforced in the English courts. The allegations concerned did not give rise to an infringement of the claimant's rights at variance to an unacceptable degree with the legal order of England and Wales. 

Employment – Transfer of employment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing an employee's appeal, held that the tribunal had not erred in ruling that because an employee, who had been on long term sick leave, had not contributed to the economic activity of a company's grouping he not assigned to that grouping and his employment had not transferred to a new employer within meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246. 

Pleading – Amendment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against an order whereby judgment was given for the claimant in the sum of £13,397. It held, among other things, that the recorder had erred in principle in having taken the course that he had in regard to allowing an amendment to the claim. Further, the recorder's analysis in respect of breach of duty was deficient in a number of respects and his reasoning in relation to causation was also flawed. 

Insolvency – Administration. The Companies Court held that directions for the administration of the statutory trusts could be given on an application under para 63 to Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 Act and, on the application of the administrators, it gave directions regarding the distribution of money in the client accounts of insurance intermediary companies, AXA and Aviva, which had gone into administration.