Latest Cases

Sentence – Custodial sentence. The Administrative Court previously found the second defendant Secretary of State in breach of public law duty to provide systems and resources the claimant prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection needed to demonstrate that detention was no longer necessary for public protection. As the first and second claimants had completed the healthy sex programme course and the second claimant would be provided with it in April to June 2016, it was no longer necessary to make a mandatory order. 

Immigration – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) that it did not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal. The original decision to refuse the appellant an EEA residence card had been made under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations, SI 2006/1003. No one stop notice had been served under s 120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Therefore, the appellant had not been entitled to raise asylum and human rights grounds on appeal, and had been constrained to appealing the original decision under the Regulations. 

Guarantee – Solicitor. The Chancery Division considered a construction dispute in which the defendant solicitors' firm had admitted breach of duty. The court considered that, although the claimants were entitled to judgment, causation had not been made out, and accordingly they were entitled only to nominal damages. 

Criminal law – Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against conviction for murder and attempted murder where the trial judge had dismissed his applications for severance in circumstances where his co-defendant had been a prosecution witness against him and the victim in respect of the attempted murder count. The counts had been properly joined and there was nothing exceptional such as to warrant a successful severance application. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division, in applications following on from the substantive judgment in which it held that the defendant solicitors had been in breach of duty, held that the claimants had been entitled to summary judgment in regard to the issue of causation. 

European Union – Regulations. The Companies Court considered whether to grant certified copies of two judgments to the applicants to enable them to take enforcement proceedings in Spain against the first, second and fourth respondents. The court held that, on the true construction of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/200 and Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, there was no discretion to refuse the application. 

Customs and excise – Duties. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal by Xerox Ltd against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to uphold a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners that the correct classification for customs purposes of what were colloquially called 'ink sticks' was under heading 3125 of the Combined Nomenclature, as established by art 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2658/87. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that the patient had capacity to determine her own medical treatment under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The consequence of that decision was that M would die. 

Bank – Account. The Chancery Division held that a banking arrangement to temporarily hold mortgage payments had not put the claimant mortgagor into arrears for those payments. Consequently, the defendant bank was wrong to have circulated adverse credit information relating to those payments. By deeming the unpaid instalments as arrears, the bank had also wrongly double-charged the claimant for interest payments. The bank had been successful in enforcing a claim for money which had been guaranteed by the claimant. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, once one had arrived at the conclusion that a previous decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) was admissible evidence of what it had decided, then, in the absence of guidelines laid down by the Upper Tribunal itself, it was a question of what weight a subsequent tribunal should give it. No doubt the extent to which the previous decision was a decision on general points of interest, rather than specific facts and the cogency of the reasoning would impact on the weight to be given to a particular decision, but that was a matter for the subsequent tribunal.