Results: 810

• R (Citizens UK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

  18 Sep 2017 [2017] EWHC 2301 (Admin); [2018] 2 All ER 573, QBD (Soole J)

  31 Jul 2018 [2018] EWCA Civ 1812; [2018] 4 WLR 123; [2019] 1 All ER 416; [2018] WLR (D) 497, CA (Hickinbottom, Singh, Asplin LJJ)

  Subsequent considerations : 3 positive; 2 neutral; most recently considered: 2025. Subsequent citations: 76.
  JUDICIAL REVIEW — Public authority — Proper approach to duty of candour in disclosure of documents and facts

  IMMIGRATION — Asylum seeker — Child
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  JUDICIAL REVIEW — Public authority — Proper approach to duty of candour in disclosure of documents and facts

  IMMIGRATION — Asylum seeker — Child — Unaccompanied children in migrant camp in France seeking asylum to join family members in United Kingdom — Camp closed and occupants dispersed to accommodation centres — Expedited process to identify and transfer unaccompanied children with family members in United Kingdom — Whether compliant with European Union law — Whether compliant with common law — Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) No 604/2013

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

• Ravenscroft v Canal & River Trust

  24 Jul 2017 [2017] EWHC 1874 (Ch); [2018] 1 WLR 249; [2017] WLR (D) 510, Ch D (Asplin J)

  STATUTORY POWER — Construction — Statutory navigational authority

  RIVER — Statutory navigational authority — Extent of powers
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  STATUTORY POWER — Construction — Statutory navigational authority — Claimant mooring pleasure boat on waterway without licence — Authority removing boat and agreeing to release upon payment of removal and storage charges and licence fee arrears — Whether boat moored on “main navigable channel” and therefore requiring licence — Whether removal of boat breach of claimant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions — Whether removal of vessel and its release upon payment of fees constituting levying of unlawful distress — Statute of Marlborough 1267 (52 Hen 3), ss 1, 4 — British Waterways Act 1971 (c 18), ss 4, 5 — British Waterways Act 1983 (c 2), s 8 — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt II, art 1

  RIVER — Statutory navigational authority — Extent of powers — Claimant mooring pleasure boat on river — No pleasure boat certificate in force in respect of boat — Authority removing boat and agreeing to release on payment of removal and storage charges and licence fee arrears — Whether boat moored on “main navigable channel” so as to require certificate — Whether unlawfully moored — Whether removal of boat breach of claimant’s Convention right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions — Whether removal of boat and its release on payment of fees constituting levying of unlawful distress — British Waterways Act 1971 (c xviii), ss 4, 5 — British Waterways Act 1983 (c ii), s 8 — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt II, art 1

  1 Case considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  3 Statutes considered

• A v Migrationsverket

  25 Jul 2018 (Case C-404/17); EU:C:2018:588; [2018] 1 WLR 4668; [2018] WLR(D) 474, ECJ (President of Chamber R Silva de Lapuerta, Judges J-C Bonichot, A Arabadjiev, S Rodin, E Regan, Advocate General M Wathelet)

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  EUROPEAN UNION — Immigration — Asylum

  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EUROPEAN UNION — Immigration — Asylum — Safe country of origin — Application for asylum in member state — Application rejected as manifestly unfounded on ground that applicant’s country of origin able to offer effective protection according to information provided by applicant himself — No legislative or regulatory provisions adopted by member state to designate safe countries of origin in accordance with procedure laid down by European Union law — Whether provisions of European Union law in such circumstances permitting member state to reject application as manifestly unfounded for insufficiency of applicant’s representations — Parliament and Council Directive 2013/32/EU, arts 31(8)(b), 32(2), 36, 37

  EUROPEAN UNION — Immigration — Asylum — Safe country of origin — Application for asylum in member state — No legislative or regulatory provisions adopted by member state to designate safe countries of origin in accordance with procedure laid down by European Union law — Whether provisions of European Union law in such circumstances permitting member state to reject application as manifestly unfounded for insufficiency of applicant’s representations — Parliament and Council Directive 2013/32/EU, arts 31(8)(b), 32(2), 36, 37

  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 31(8) and Article 32(2) — Manifestly unfounded application for international protection — Concept of safe country of origin — No national rules concerning that concept — Applicant’s representations considered to be reliable but insufficient having regard to the satisfactory protection offered by the applicant’s country of origin

  1 EU Enactment considered
• Proceedings brought by Jafari (Proceedings brought by Khadija Jafari and Zainab Jafari)

  26 Jul 2017 (Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl intervening) (Case C-646/16); EU:C:2017:586; [2018] 1 WLR 773; [2017] WLR (D) 524, ECJ (President K Lenaerts, Vice-President A Tizzano, Presidents of Chambers R Silva de Lapuerta, L Bay Larsen, JL da Cruz Vilaça, M Berger, A Prechal, Judges A Rosas, A Arabadjiev, C Toader, M Safjan, D Šváby, E Jarašiūnas, CG Fernlund, S Rodin Advocate General E Sharpston)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 15.
  EUROPEAN UNION — Immigration — Asylum

  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EUROPEAN UNION — Immigration — Asylum — Determination of member state responsible for examining third-country national’s application for international protection — Arrival of exceptionally large number of third-country national applicants — Organisation by member state’s authorities of border crossing for purpose of transit to another member state — Entry authorised by way of derogation for humanitarian reasons — Whether fact that authorities of a member state tolerating entry into its territory of third-country nationals not fulfilling entry conditions tantamount to issuing of “visa” — Whether third-country nationals “irregularly crossed” border — Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, arts 2(m), 12, 13(1)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Immigration — Asylum — Member state tolerating entry into its territory of large number of third-country nationals seeking international protection — Nationals not fulfilling entry conditions generally imposed in that member state — Whether tolerance of nationals’ entry amounting to granting of “visa” — Whether nationals “irregularly crossing” border into member state — Whether member state responsible for examining nationals’ applications for international protection — Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, arts 2(m), 12, 13(1)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking international protection — Organisation of border crossing by the authorities of one Member State for the purpose of transit to another Member State — Entry authorised by way of derogation on humanitarian grounds — Article 2(m) — Definition of a ‘visa’ — Article 12 — Issuing of a visa — Article 13 — Irregular crossing of an external border

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 EU Enactment considered
• Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc

  27 May 2016 [2016] EWHC 975 (TCC); [2016] BCC 774; [2016] BLR 461, QBD

  13 Oct 2017 [2017] EWCA Civ 1528; [2018] 1 WLR 3575; [2017] WLR(D) 741, CA (Jackson, Simon, Asplin LJJ)

  23 Mar 2018 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  10 Apr 2019 (International Commission of Jurists intervening) [2019] UKSC 20; [2020] AC 1045; [2019] 2 WLR 1051; [2019] 3 All ER 1013; [2019] 2 All ER (Comm) 559; [2019] 2 Lloyd's Rep 399; [2019] WLR (D) 241; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Briggs JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 5 positive; 3 neutral; 1 negative; most recently considered: 2024. Subsequent citations: 187.
  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction under European Union Regulation — Forum non conveniens

  PRACTICE — Claim form — Service out of jurisdiction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction under European Union Regulation — Forum non conveniens — Claimants’ claims against defendants domiciled in United Kingdom and Zambia respectively — English courts having jursidiction under Regulation in respect of United Kingdom defendant — Whether courts having discretion to decline jurisdiction in favour of Zambian courts — Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, art 4

  PRACTICE — Claim form — Service out of jurisdiction — Claimants’ claims against defendants domiciled in United Kingdom and Zambia respectively — Claimants granted permission to serve claim form on Zambian defendant out of jurisdiction — Whether “real issue” between claimants and United Kingdom defendant to which Zambian defendant necessary and proper party — Proper approach where issue of law in underlying litigation fundamental to court’s jurisdiction — CPR r 6.36, Practice Direction 6B, para 3.1

  PRACTICE — Claim form — Service out of jurisdiction — Claimants’ claims against defendants domiciled in United Kingdom and Zambia respectively — Claimants granted permission to serve claim form on Zambian defendant out of jurisdiction — Whether “real issue” between claimants and United Kingdom defendant to which Zambian defendant necessary and proper party — Whether England “proper place” for hearing claim — Whether claimants able to achieve substantial justice if claim heard in Zambia — CPR rr 6.36, 6.37(3), Practice Direction 6B, para 3.1

  10 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• Santos-Albert v Ochi

  23 May 2018 [2018] EWHC 1277 (Ch); [2018] 4 WLR 88; [2018] 4 All ER 265; [2018] WLR (D) 315, Ch D (Mr Justice Snowden)

  Subsequent citations: 5.
  PRACTICE — Slip rule — Correction of errors
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — Slip rule — Correction of errors — Final charging order drawn up in respect of defendant’s property — District judge exercising power under slip rule to make amendments to order — Defendant contending amendment significantly changing amount secured — Whether amendment permitted under slip rule — CPR r 40.12

  PRACTICE — Slip rule — Correction of errors — Final charging order drawn up in respect of defendant’s property — District judge exercising power under slip rule to make amendment to order — Defendant contending amendment significantly changing amount secured — Whether amendment permitted under slip rule — CPR r 40.12

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• R v K (M) (R v Gega)

  28 Mar 2018 [2018] EWCA Crim 667; [2019] QB 86; [2018] 3 WLR 895; [2018] 3 All ER 566; [2018] 2 Cr App R 14; [2018] WLR (D) 203, CA (Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ, Andrews, Martin Spencer JJ)

  Subsequent citations: 14.
  CRIME — Practice — Statutory defence

  CRIME — Burden of proof — Statutory defence
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CRIME — Practice — Statutory defence — Whether evidential or legal burden of proving defence falling on defendant — Modern Slavery Act 2015, s 45

  CRIME — Burden of proof — Statutory defence — Defence to criminal charges for victims of human trafficking — Whether defendant under evidential or legal burden in relation to elements of defence — Modern Slavery Act 2015 (c 30), s 45

  2 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

• Pun v Secretary of State for the Home Department

  , UT

  13 Dec 2017 [2017] EWCA Civ 2106; [2018] 4 WLR 80; [2017] WLR(D) 839, CA (Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Hamblen, Lord Justice Newey)

  IMMIGRATION — Leave to remain — Family members
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  IMMIGRATION — Leave to remain — Family members — Secretary of State’s policy for granting of leave to remain to dependent adult children of former Gurkhas — Whether non-dependent adult child of Gurkha with no shared family life benefiting from policy — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 8

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered
• S Franses Ltd v Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd

  03 Jul 2017 [2017] EWHC 1670 (QB); [2017] Bus LR 1941; [2017] WLR (D) 503, QBD (Jay J)

  22 Jan 2018 (appn all) [2018] Bus LR 549, SC(E) (Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes JJSC)

  05 Dec 2018 [2018] UKSC 62; [2019] AC 249; [2018] 3 WLR 1952; [2018] Bus LR 2504; [2019] 2 All ER 463; [2018] WLR (D) 778; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Sumption, Lady Black, Lord Briggs, Lord Kitchin JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 negative; most recently considered: 2025. Subsequent citations: 11.
  LANDLORD AND TENANT — Business premises (security of tenure) — Application for new tenancy
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LANDLORD AND TENANT — Business premises (security of tenure) — Application for new tenancy — Landlord opposing application on ground of intention to carry out substantial works of reconstruction — Landlord contriving scheme of works for sole purpose of obtaining vacant possession — Whether landlord having sufficient intention to carry out scheme — Relevance of landlord’s motive — Whether in assessment of scheme judge failing to exclude works capable of being performed under landlord’s right of entry — Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (2 & 3 Eliz 2, c 56), s 30(1)(f)(as amended by Law of Property Act 1969 (c 59), s 15, Sch 1)

  LANDLORD AND TENANT — Business premises (security of tenure) — Application for new tenancy — Landlord opposing application on ground of intention to carry out substantial works of reconstruction — Landlord intending to carry out works if necessary to obtain vacant possession but not if tenant vacating voluntarily — Whether landlord having sufficient intention to make out ground of opposition — Relevance of landlord’s motive — Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (2 & 3 Eliz 2, c 56), s 30(1)(f) (as amended by Law of Property Act 1969 (c 59), s 15, Sch 1)

  5 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered
• R (Business Energy Solutions Ltd) v Crown Court at Preston

  19 Jun 2018 [2018] EWHC 1534 (Admin); [2018] 1 WLR 4887; [2018] 4 All ER 1053; [2018] 2 Cr App R 25; [2018] WLR (D) 381, DC (Bean LJ and Green J)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 5.
  POLICE — Search, right of — Search warrant

  TRADING STANDARDS — Search, right of — Search warrant
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  POLICE — Search, right of — Search warrant — Trading standards authority obtaining warrants authorising search of claimants’ premises to seize material including computer equipment and data storage devices — Data from seized computer devices copied by authority onto its own systems — Whether copied data “seized property” capable in principle of being returned — Whether reasonably practicable to separate and return improperly seized material — Whether copied data to be returned — Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c 16), ss 53, 59

  TRADING STANDARDS — Search, right of — Search warrant — Trading standards authority obtaining warrants authorising search of claimants’ premises to seize material including computer equipment and data storage devices — Data from seized computer devices copied onto authority’s own systems — Whether copied data “seized property” capable in principle of being returned — Whether “reasonably practicable” to separate and return improperly seized material — Whether copied data to be returned — Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c 16), ss 53, 59

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered