Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in Family proceedings. The court remained the ultimate arbiter of whether a child had understanding or sufficient understanding to act without a children's guardian. The Queen's Bench Division so ruled in determining preliminary issues which arose concerning the dismissal of a mother's application to vary an order that the child live with her father (the decision). The court held that an appeal against the decision was a continuation of the first instance proceedings and, accordingly, FPR 16.6(5) (concerning a child's application for the removal of the litigation friend or children's guardian) applied. It further held that, on the facts of the case, the child did not have sufficient understanding to conduct an appeal without a children's guardian, that the guardian who had been appointed in the earlier proceedings remained appointed, and that the solicitor appointed by that guardian was not obliged to conduct the proceedings in accordance with instructions received from the child but, rather, in accordance with instructions received from the guardian.

Company – Directors. Following the presentation by the petitioner of an unfair prejudice petition under s 994 of the Companies Act 2006 seeking an order that the respondent directors purchase his shares at fair value, the Chancery Division held that there had been unfairly prejudicial conduct for which the petitioner was entitled to relief.

Immigration – Asylum. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT), in its decision allowing the appellant Sri Lankan national of Tamil ethnicity's appeal on asylum and art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights grounds against a decision to make a deportation order against him, had not erred in law in the manner identified by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant's appeal and reinstated the FTT's determination.

Immigration – Leave to remain. The inapt use of 'sufficient' by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) did not lead to the conclusion that it had introduced an impermissible test of sufficiency. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant Bangladeshi national's appeal, held that, given the evidence before it and applying the right test, the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) conclusion that the appellant had no family life for the purposes of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had plainly been open to it and the appeal to the UT had rightly failed.

Human rights – Discrimination. The claimant's application for judicial review, contending that the defendant Secretary of State's issue of a notice of letting to a disqualified person was unlawful under the Equality Act 2010, was not entertained because there was no outstanding 'lis' between the parties after the Secretary of State had withdrawn the notice. However, the Administrative Court alternatively concluded that the issue of the notice was not an unlawful act of race discrimination but, on the contrary, was lawful and authorised.

Immigration – Asylum. The guidance given in the body of MN (Ahmadis - country conditions - risk) Pakistan CG ([2012] UKUT 00389 (IAC)) and in the headnote was misleading, and should not be followed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appellant Ahmadi of Pakistani nationality's appeal, held that the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in disbelieving his claim had made a conscientious and careful attempt to apply the guidance in MN, but that guidance had been flawed.

Extradition – Right to a fair hearing. Although the possibility that the evidence could establish a risk of a flagrant breach of art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of all suspects brought before a given court could not be excluded, the evidence concerning the first appellant pointed in the opposite direction. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appellants' appeals against orders for their extradition to Poland, further held that there was no basis for concluding that the second appellant was at any particular risk of bias or other distortion of justice in relation to the disaggregation process.

Lending and security – Standard security – Enforcement – Recall of decree. Sheriff Court: In proceedings in which the defender sought to recall a decree granted to the pursuer on its summary application under s 24(1B) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 (application by creditor in a standard security for warrant to exercise remedies on default), the court held that as the Citizens Advice Scotland employee who represented the defender at the first calling of the summary application was not an 'approved lay representative', she had no authority to appear on behalf of the defender at the hearing and the defender, who apparently did not appear before the court on that date, was not to be regarded as 'represented' at the hearing for the purposes of s 24D(2)(b) of the 1970 Act: accordingly, the minute of recall of decree was competent and should be granted.

Sentencing – Long-term prisoner – Supervised Release Order ('SRO') – Competency. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal against sentence by an appellant who pled guilty on summary complaint to threatening or abusive behaviour, a case which called for sentencing alongside an indictment in respect of which he had been convicted of assault and attempted robbery, the sheriff imposing a sentence of 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment, with a 12-month SRO in relation to the indictment, and on the summary complaint a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment, to run consecutively to the first sentence, the court held that the consecutive sentences were to be treated as a single term of 4 years; the appellant thus fell within the category of a long term prisoner, and his release would be subject to licence, which meant that it was not competent for the sheriff to impose an SRO, since such a component of the sentence could not be given effect.

Sentencing – Order for lifelong restriction (OLR). High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal against sentence by an appellant who pled guilty to a charge of assault to severe injury and impairment on a fellow prisoner, having in the previous five years received sentences in the High Court for assault an another inmate, and for domestic assault to injury and rape, and on whom, following the preparation of a risk assessment report, the sentencing judge imposed an OLR with a punishment part of 2 years and 3 months' imprisonment, the court was entirely satisfied that the sentencing judge was correct in concluding that the risk criteria were met in the appellant's case and that an OLR ought to be imposed.