In the matter of D (a child) (expedited) was heard on 3 and 4 October 2018. This case is considering whether the confinement of D, a child aged 16, who lacks capacity or competence to make decisions about his residence and care, amounted to a deprivation of his liberty for the purposes of ECHR, art 5, in circumstances where his parents are consenting to the confinement. This matter arose for D who has been diagnosed with ADHD, Asperger’s Syndrome, Tourette’s Syndrome and a mild learning disability. He was housed in a residential placement with his parents’ consent in 2012, and on his 16th birthday the council applied for a declaration that D is not deprived of his liberty as his parents can still consent to his confinement.

Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd & Ors was heard on 10 October 2018. This case is considering whether a party who seeks to set aside a judgment on the basis that it was obtained by fraud must demonstrate that he or she could not have discovered the fraud by the exercise of reasonable (or due) diligence at the time of the original trial. It concerns the Appellant who, following a ruling in 2010 that she had not transferred beneficial ownership of some properties to the Respondents due to undue influence and unconscionable conduct, has brought proceedings claiming that the joint venture agreement which she had purportedly signed in the earlier case was forged. The Respondents claim that the current proceedings are an abuse of process as, had she exercised due diligence, the Appellant could have discovered the fraud earlier.

Wells v Devani was heard on 11 October 2018. This case is considering the agreement between an estate agent and the respondent made in oral discussions concerning the commission payable in property sales when they have agreed the percentage of commission payable, but not the precise event upon which commission is payable.

In the matter of an application by Hugh Jordan for Judicial Review (NI) was heard 23 October 2018. This case is considering whether the appellant is permitted to bring a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998, alleging a breach of the requirement of promptness in an investigation into a death contrary to ECHR, art 2, before the inquest has finally concluded. This case arose in the context of Pearse Jordan who was shot and killed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in 1992, and for whom an inquest was opened an adjourned in 1995. The inquest resumed in 2012 but is yet to conclude. The Court of Appeal below has ruled that a claim for damages for breach of art 2 should not be brought until the inquest has finally been determine; this is being appealed against by Pease Jordan’s mother.

SAE Education Ltd v the Commissioners of HMRC was heard on 30 October 2018. This appeal is considering whether the appellant was a college of Middlesex University and therefore an ‘eligible body’ within the meaning of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, Sch 9, Group 6, Item 1, exempting its supplies of education from VAT.

Robinson v Secretary of State for the Home Department (formerly JR (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department) was heard on 15 November 2018. This case is considering whether the right to appeal against the refusal of a ‘human rights claim’ pursuant to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s 82, includes determinations by the Secretary of State that further submissions do not amount to a ‘fresh claim’ under the Immigration Rules, para 353. This matter arose for an individual who is a citizen of Jamaica, who has lived in the UK since the age of seven, and who the Secretary of State decided to deport in 2013 following convictions for serious offences.

Actavis Group PTC EHF & Ors v ICOS Corporation & Anor was heard on 19 November 2018. This appeal is considering what the correct test is for obviousness in the context of assessing the validity of a pharmaceutical patent. This arose in the context of the drug Tadalafil which treats male erectile dysfunction and has a European patent owned by ICOS and exclusively licensed to Eli Lilly. The respondents are attempting to revoke the Tadalafil patent, arguing that the patent was obvious in light of another publication (Daugan).

Perry v Raleys Solicitors was heard on 27 November 2018. This case is considering whether, where a solicitor negligently fails to advise a client of a potential claim against a third party, and where that client then brings a claim against the solicitor, seeking damages for the lost opportunity to pursue the former claim, must the client prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the former claim would have been an honest claim. This question arose in the case of a miner who brought a claim, using Raleys Solicitors, for damages against the Department for Trade and Industry for the condition of Vibration White Finger which he settled in 1999. However, because this was settled without reference to the cost of day-to-day assistance, Mr Perry is now bringing a claim against Raleys for negligently failing to advise him of the possibility of pursuing a services claim. Whilst Raleys accepts the negligence, they dispute that this caused Mr Perry any loss, and the trial judge found that Mr Perry had not been in a position to pursue a successful services claim honestly.

Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd was heard on 28 November 2018. The appeal is considering whether a claimant is entitled to bring a claim for damages against an unnamed defendant if the claimant has been the victim of an unidentified hit-and-run driver, and the car the unidentified driver was driving is covered by an insurance policy, albeit on in the name of someone untraceable. This arose in a case where Miss Cameron was in a vehicle collision with a hit-and-run driver and, because she could not prove who was driving the other vehicle, she sought to amend the claim to be brought against ‘the person unknown driving vehicle registration number Y598 SPS who collided with vehicle registration number KG03 ZIZ on 26th May 2013’.

Hancock & Anor v HMRC was heard on 6 December 2018. The case is considering whether a conversion of both non-qualifying corporate bonds and qualifying corporate bonds in a reorganisation is to be treated as a single conversion or two distinct conversions for the purposes of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, s 132.

Konecny v District Court Czech Republic was heard on 6 December 2018. This appeal is considering whether, where an individual has been convicted, but that conviction is not final because he has an unequivocal right to a retrial after surrender, he is ‘accused’ pursuant to the Extradition Act 2003, s 14(a) or ‘unlawfully at large’ pursuant to s 14(b) for the purposes of considering the ‘passage of time’ bar to surrender. In this case, the appellant previously resided in the Czech Republic before coming to the UK in 2007. He was tried and convicted in his absence in the Czech Republic in 2008 for fraud, and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. The appellant was unaware of this until his arrest in 2017, following the certification of a European Arrest Warrant. The appellant is appealing against the extradition order.

KV (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department was heard on 10 and 11 December 2018. This case is considering what the correct approach is to the assessment of medical evidence in asylum claims alleging torture. This matter arose in the case of the appellant who is a Sri Lankan national and claims that, due to his association with the Tamil Tigers, he was detained and tortured between 2009-11. The respondent does not believe his account and rejected his claim for asylum.

R (Derry) v Commissioners for HMRC was heard on 12 December 2018. This appeal is considering the correct procedure HMRC is required to follow under the Taxes Management Act 1970 where it wishes to enquire into a claim for carry-back share loss relief made in a self-assessed and calculated tax return.

R&S Pilling T/AS Phoenix Engineering v UK Insurance was heard on 13 December 2018. This appeal is considering whether, on it true construction, a policy of motor insurance covers extends to liability for damage to the property of third parties because of fire caused by repair work to the car when it is immobilised.