AA069062014 and Others: AIT 30 Aug 2017

Several appellants, all from the same judge, complained of his handling of their cases.
Held: The complaints about the decisions were entirely well-founded: ‘Nobody reading them could detect how the judge reached the conclusion he did, acting within the law and applying the relevant substantive law to the facts as found. That is partly because the law and the facts are never the subject of any detailed reference, disputes on the facts are not identified, and there are next to no findings of relevant fact; more seriously it is because the Judge’s statements in his decisions, either by direct assertion or by disquisition on the irrelevant, give real reason to suppose that he is not even trying to act within the law and apply the relevant substantive law to the facts as found.’

Judges:

CMG Ockleton VP, O’Connor, Smith UTJJ

Citations:

[2017] UKAITUR AA069062014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – ex parte Gondolia 1991
In dismissing the claimant’s application for judicial review, Henry J held: ‘Secondly, it is said, and again correctly, that there is no mention in the adjudicator’s determination and reasons that the initiative for the first introduction of the . .
Approved – IA307162014 AIT 5-Feb-2016
. .
Cited – Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration 1963
The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must . .
Cited – Capital and Suburban Properties v Swycher CA 1976
Although in certain procedural decisions, reasons need not be given, they otherwise must be. Buckley LJ said: ‘Litigants are entitled to know on what grounds their cases are decided. It is of importance that the legal profession should know on what . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Khan 1983
The court considered the need for a judge to give reasons
Lord Lane CJ said: ‘The important matter which must be borne in mind by Tribunals in the present type of circumstances is that it must be apparent from what they state by way of reasons . .
Cited – Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd HL 28-Feb-1991
An order allowing demolition of a listed building was possible even though the building itself remained viable. The function of the courts was to validate the decision making process, not the merits of the decision.
Lord Bridge analysed the . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Mohd Amin 1992
Schiemann J said of adjudicators in immigration matters: ‘In my judgment adjudicators should indicate with some clarity in their decisions: (1) what evidence they accept; (2) what evidence they reject; (3) whether there is any evidence as to which . .
Cited – Regina v The Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Rajendrakumar CA 11-Oct-1995
The three Tamil applicants had left the area of Sri Lanka controlled by the Tamil Tigers and gone to live in Colombo. It was asserted that in Colombo they had a well-founded fear of persecution because they were young male Tamils and were therefore . .
Cited – MK (Duty To Give Reasons) Pakistan UTIAC 28-Oct-2013
UTIAC (1) It is axiomatic that a determination discloses clearly the reasons for a tribunal’s decision.
(2) If a tribunal finds oral evidence to be implausible, incredible or unreliable or a document to be . .
Cited – Pokhriyal v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 5-Dec-2013
Appeals by foreign students agaonst rejection of requests for entry to pursue further studies
Jackson LJ observed of the Pointe Based System Rules that they had ‘now achieved a degree of complexity which even the Byzantine emperors would have . .
Cited – Zhang, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 18-Apr-2013
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.595021

Kirkwood and City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 11 Jul 2016

Legal Advice
On 7 October 2015, Mr Kirkwood asked the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for legal advice relating to an enforcement notice.
The Council withheld the information. Following a review, Mr Kirkwood remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council was correct to withhold the information as disclosure would be likely to substantially prejudice future enforcement action.

Citations:

[2016] ScotIC 153 – 2016

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.568217

Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand: 22 Sep 1988

(Court of Appeal of New Zealand) The plaintiff had created a hugely sucessful TV programme in the UK, called Opportunity Knocks. He now appealed against rejection of his claim in copyright alleging that the defendant had copied the format, and also in passing off.
Held: Courts have a discretion whether or not to order a new trial where fresh evidence is sought to be introduced and, in exercise of that discretion, they should apply the tests in Ladd v Marshall
Ongley J considered the claim to copyright in the words ‘Opportunity Knocks’ and held that copyright did not subsist in the title. His Honour noted that it is a difficult but not an impossible task to establish copyright in a title. He referred to the Privy Council decision in Francis

Judges:

Somers, Casey, Gallen JJ

Citations:

[1988] NZCA 180, CA40/84, [1988] 2 NZLR 490, (1988) 2 TCLR 701

Links:

Nzlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Ladd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .
Cited – Francis Day and Hunter Limited v 20th Century Fox Corporation Limited PC 12-Oct-1939
(Ontario) Copyright protection was asserted on in connection with the title to a film (‘The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo’).
Held: It was not a literary work capable of attracting copyright protection. As a rule, such titles do not . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand PC 18-Jul-1989
Format of TV show not copyrightable
Court of Appeal of New Zealand – The plaintiff had developed the program ‘Opportunity Knocks’ on British television. He claimed copyright in the general structure or format of a similar television programme in New Zealand, and also in passing off. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.567719

Siddiqui v University of Oxford: QBD 5 Dec 2016

The University applied to have struck out the claim by the claimant for damages alleging negligence in its teaching leading to a lower class degree than he said he should have been awarded.
Held: Strike out on the basis that the claim was bound to fail was refused. Nor was the claim bound to fail under limitation difficulties. Application refused

Judges:

Kerr J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3150 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – E D and F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel and Another CA 4-Apr-2003
The rules contained two occasions on which a court would consider dismissal of a claim as having ‘no real prospect’ of success.
Held: The only significant difference between CPR 24.2 and 13.3(1), is that under the first the overall burden of . .
Cited – Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside CA 14-Apr-2000
A student had been failed after being falsely accused of cheating, but the academic review board, on remarking the paper marked it as zero.
Held: Where a University did not have the supervisory jurisdiction of a visitor, a breach of contract . .
Cited – Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL 28-Jul-2000
The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.
Cited – Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee QBD 1957
Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care
Negligence was alleged against a doctor.
Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test . .
Cited – Abramova v Oxford Institute of Legal Practice QBD 18-Mar-2011
The claimant sought damages saying that the defendant had failed to provide her with the Legal Practice Course promised. The complaints included, in particular, an attack on the practice of having students mark their own mock examination papers.
Cited – Winstanley v Sleeman and Another QBD 13-Dec-2013
The claimant’s PhD thesis had initially failed, but on an internal appeal that decision was reversed, the appellate body accepting the contention that the supervision or other arrangements during his period of study had been unsatisfactory. The . .
Cited – Spargo v North Essex District Health Authority CA 13-Mar-1997
The test of ‘When a plaintiff became aware of the cause of an injury’ is a subjective test of what passed through plaintiff’s mind. ‘(1) the knowledge required to satisfy s14(1)(b) is a broad knowledge of the essence of the causally relevant act or . .
Cited – Ministry of Defence v AB and Others SC 14-Mar-2012
The respondent Ministry had, in 1958, conducted experimental atmospheric explosions of atomic weapons. The claimants had been obliged as servicemen to observe the explosions, and appealed against dismissal of their claims for radiation sickness . .
Cited – Cave v Robinson Jarvis and Rolf (a Firm) HL 25-Apr-2002
An action for negligence against a solicitor was defended by saying that the claim was out of time. The claimant responded that the solicitor had not told him of the circumstances which would lead to the claim, and that deliberate concealment should . .
See Also – Siddiqui v University of Oxford QBD 2016
Kerr J refused an application for him to recuse himself based inter alia on the fact that counsel for the Defendant before him was a member of his former chambers: ‘It is true that I was a member of the same chambers of Mr Milford until June 2015. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Siddiqui v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford QBD 7-Feb-2018
. .
See Also – Siddiqui v University of Oxford QBD 16-Mar-2018
Post judgment issues . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Education, Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.572350