R(IRAN) V SSHD  EWCA Civ 982 This judgment involved five appeals from the former Immigration Appeal Tribunal (“IAT”) which was not the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. An appeal to the IAT lay pursuant to s 101(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 Act. Full report here.
CAWSAND FORT MANAGEMENT CO LTD V STAFFORD & OTHERS  EWCA Civ 982 This was a renewed application for permission to appeal from a decision of the Lands Tribunal. That decision was on an appeal from an order made by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for the Southern Rent Assessment Panel under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Applications under section 24 were made by a number of those individuals who were tenants of residential units within a group of buildings known as Cawsand Fort. The issue was whether the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (“LVT”) went beyond its powers in purporting to appoint a manager of the whole of the property known as "The Fort". Full report here.
SSHD V AKAEKE  EWCA Civ 947 The claimant entered the country illegally not later than November 1994. She claimed to have been persecuted in Nigeria, and made a claim for asylum which was refused in December 1995. In February 1996 she married her present husband, who was a British citizen. Her application to remain on the basis of her marriage was refused in September 1996, because the marriage post-dated enforcement action. Full report here.
HINCHEY V SECRETARY OF STATE  UKHL 16 The Claimant had been paid income support for many years, having suffered from irritable bowel syndrome and Disability Living Allowance in the middle category. Her award was for a limited period and expired in October 1998. She applied for a renewal but was refused, and her appeal was dismissed. However she continued to be paid DLA and was overpaid £3,555.40. The question in this appeal was whether the Secretary of State can claim the money back. He had a statutory right of recovery under section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 ("the Administration Act"): Full report here.
NAPP PHARMACEUTICAL HOLDINGS LTD V DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FAIR TRADING  EWCA Civ 796 The Claimant company had a dominant position in the drugs market for the supply of a certain drug. The Director General made a finding that it had abused its dominant position in the terms of section 18 of the Competition Act 1998 in a number of ways. He imposed various regulatory measures and imposed a penalty of £3.21 million, which was later reduced. Napp sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against both the findings of the Tribunal as to abuse and the fact and amount of the penalty. Full report here.
The contents of this site remains the sole responsibility of Malcolm Johnson as a private individual, and is not endorsed by any business by which he is employed. In particular Malcolm Johnson does not hold himself out as preparing this website for or on behalf of any business by which he is employed, or as having been authorised by any business or employer to do so. It is not intended to stand as legal advice in any particular case, and should not be relied upon as such. To the extent permitted by law, Malcolm Johnson will not be liable by reason of breach of contract, negligence, or otherwise for any loss of consequential loss occasioned to any person acting omitting to act or refraining from acting in reliance upon the website material or arising from or connected with any error or omission in the website material. Consequential loss shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to, any loss of profits or anticipated profits, damage to reputation, or goodwill, loss of business or anticipated business, damages, costs, expenses incurred or payable to any third party or any other indirect or consequential losses.