Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. Paragraph 46-SD(h)(i) of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules, in so far as it required submission of real time information submissions made to the Revenue and Customs Commissioners, was not unreasonable and, thereby, unlawful. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant Indian national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant, further rejected her contention that the Secretary of State's failure to exercise residual discretion in favour of the claimant, or to consider exercising that discretion, was unlawful.

Practice – Injunction. The appellant had had an entitlement to appeal as of right against the variation of a freezing order imposing a confidentiality club by virtue of s 30(4)(ii) of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Virgin Islands) Act. The Privy Council, in advising Her Majesty that the appeal should be allowed, held that, for the purposes of application of s 30(4)(ii), it made no difference that the confidentiality club had been imposed later on by way of a variation of the terms of the freezing order, since the effect of such a variation was that a new injunction in different terms was put in place.

Extradition – Evidence. If the judge had been considering the facts as they were, he himself would have been required to order, and would have ordered, the appellant's discharge. Accordingly, the Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against an order for extradition to Poland to face trial for high value VAT frauds.

Criminal law – Misconduct in public office. It was a proper case to issue a summons against Boris Johnson for three offences alleging misconduct in a public office while he was Mayor of London and a member of Parliament by allegedly repeatedly lying and misleading the British public as to the cost of EU membership, expressly stating, endorsing or inferring that the cost of EU membership was £350 million per week. The Magistrates' Court held that there was sufficient to establish prima facie evidence of an issue to be determined at trial of the elements of misconduct in a public office and the application was not vexatious.

Practice – Early neutral evaluation. The court could not order that there be an early neutral evaluation hearing or financial dispute resolution hearing (and by extension give directions for it) in the absence of consent, pursuant to CPR 3.1(2)(m). Accordingly, the Family Court dismissed the claimant widow's application in the course of her proceedings for provision out of the estate of her late husband against the defendant step-son, co-executor and beneficiary.

Company – Director. The respondent former director of the first applicant company in liquidation had knowingly been a party to the use of the company for the purposes of defrauding a bankrupt's creditors and had been in breach of her duties as director. The Chancery Division, in allowing the company's liquidator claim against the respondent, further held that ss 21 and 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 disapplied the primary limitation period in relation to a loan, whether that breach was characterised as fraudulent or negligent.

Extradition – Discharge. The further time which the appellant had spent in custody was fresh evidence available to show that his appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland ought to be allowed. Accordingly, the Administrative Court would make an order the following Friday, which would be one day short of the whole sentence period, directing the discharge of the appellant.

Landlord and tenant – Service charges. It was accepted that the power of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to review its own decisions was limited to doing so on a point of law which could provide a ground of appeal under s 11 of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) so held, among other things, in the course of hearing the appellant landlord's appeal and the respondent leaseholders' cross-appeal concerning the leaseholders' liability to contribute towards service charges as set out in three invoices in relation to certain calendar years. The appeal was allowed to the extent of £70,902 which had been properly included in the service charge for 2014. However, the appeal in respect of the balance of the sum of £557,557, as set out in Invoices 1 and 2, was dismissed. The cross-appeal was allowed except to the extent of the same sum of £70,902.

Company – Share purchase agreement. The first defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claimant companies' claim for damages for, among other things, deceit in relation to the alleged misrepresentation of the financial circumstances of the first claimant company following the entry by the second claimant company into a share purchase agreement for the purchase of the first claimant's holding company. Consequently, the Commercial Court granted summary judgment on the first claimant's claim for damages against the first defendant. However, the court was not prepared to decide any other points on a summary basis, including the first defendant's counterclaim and additional claim.

European Union – Concept of state aid. The applicant, Real Madrid Club de Fútbol (the club), sought annulment of the European Commission's decision to classify compensation paid to the club by Madrid City Council as state aid within the meaning of art 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The compensation had been paid to the club following the inability of MCC to perform its obligations under the relevant agreement in relation to the transfer of land to the applicant. The General Court of the European Union annulled the Commission's decision on the ground that the Commission had failed to prove to the requisite standard that the compensation had conferred an advantage on the club. Since at least one of the cumulative requirements for a measure to be classified as state aid had not been satisfied, the compensation could not be treated as state aid for the purposes of art 107(1) TFEU.