Share it
It’s a busy week in the Supreme Court. Starting on Monday 13 February 2012 is the two day appeal of R (on the application of ST (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department in front of a panel of seven (L Hale, L Hope, L Brown, L Mance, L Kerr, L Clarke and L Dyson). The appellant is of Eritrean nationality, although she has never lived there and lived in Ethiopia prior to coming to the UK. She was granted temporary admission to the UK in 1998 after claiming asylum and humanitarian protection, and in 2004 the Secretary of State rejected her application and put in process directions for her removal to Eritrea. The decision was successfully appealed and in 2006 the AIT recognised her refugee status. The Secretary of State issued a fresh notice of refusal of leave to enter, proposing her removal to Ethiopia. This was appealed by the appellant, who also sought judicial review of the decision. The Court of Appeal overturned the Administrative Court’s quashing of the order, and it is for the Supreme Court to decide whether the Court of Appeal erred as to the true meaning of the words “lawfully present” in Article 32 of the Refugee Convention and in concluding that the House of Lords’ decision in Szoma was incorrect and/or inapplicable; and also to determine the nature of the obligations of the UK under the Refugee Convention and the Qualification Directive to refrain from expelling an individual with refugee status. Case details are available here.
From Wednesday 15 February 2012 over two days is the appeal of Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council, on appeal from the Court of Session (Scotland) which is being heard by Lords Hope, Brown, Kerr, Reed and Dyson. This concerns the granting by the respondent council of planning permission for a rival supermarket (Asda) 800 metres from the appellant’s supermarket. Scottish Executive policy guidance states that, subject to material considerations indicating otherwise, proposed sites should be considered in the following descending order of preference: (a) town centre, (b) edge of town, (c) other commercial centres identified in the development plan and (d) out of centre locations that can be accessed by various transport modes. In considering Asda’s application, the council accepted that the proposal failed to comply with this “sequential test” but given that it did not undermine the core land use strategies of the development plan and had a number of other planning, economic and social benefits, permission was granted. Tesco applied for judicial review of the council’s decision arguing that it had improperly interpreted and applied the development plan and that failed to consider its own policy, and this application was dismissed. On appeal to the Inner House of the Court of Session it was held the council was required only to apply the development plan and the sequential test to the extent that it was relevant, and in this case there were other much broader considerations that indicated permission should be given. It is for the Supreme Court to determine whether the council had improperly interpreted and applied the development plan, and also whether the interests of the Lochee district (the area of Dundee in which both plots are situated) require separate consideration. Here are the case details.
On Wednesday 15 February 2012 the Supreme Court will hand down judgment in Sugar (Deceased) v British Broadcasting Corporation & anor.
In the Privy Council this week is the appeal of Commissioner of Taxpayer Audit and Assessment v Cigarette Company of Jamaica Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation), which will be heard on Wednesday 15 February by Lords Walker, Mance, Wilson, Sumption and Sir Patrick Coghlin. This appeal concerns whether transfers to the respondent from its holding company were genuine loans or merely described this way to avoid taxation on them. For more information case details are available here.
On Wednesday 15 February 2012 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will hand down judgment in the following matters: Ian Seepersad and Roodal Panchoo v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and E Anthony Ross v Bank of Commerce Trust and Savings Association Ltd.
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding:
R v Waya, heard 5 May 2011.
Flood v Times Newspapers, heard 17 – 18 Oct 2011.
Lehman Brothers International v CRC Credit Fund Ltd and GLC Investments PLC Sub Fund, heard 31 October – 3 November 2011.
Ministry of Defence v AB & Ors, heard 14 – 17 November 2011.
BAI Ltd v Thomas Bates and Son Ltd, BAI Ltd v Durham, Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd v Zurich Insurance, Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd v Zurich Insurance Company and Adur District Council and Ors, Independent Insurance Company Ltd v Fleming and Anor, Municipal Mutual Insurance Company v Zurich Insurance Company and Ors, Excess Insurance Company Ltd v Edwards, Excess Insurance Company Ltd v Akzo Nobel UK Ltd and Excess Insurance Company Ltd v Amec plc, heard 5 – 14 December 2011.
In the matter of Peacock, heard 14 December 2011.
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. v E.N.E. Kos 1 Ltd, heard 12 – 15 January 2012.
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership), heard 17 – 20 January 2012.
Stanford International Bank Ltd (acting by its joint liquidators) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office, heard 23 – 25 January 2012.
PP v Secretary of State for the Home Department, (formerly VV [Jordan]), PP v SSHD, W & BB v SSHD and Z, G, U & Y v SSHD, heard 30 – 31 January 2012.
Assange v The Swedish Judicial Authority, heard 1 – 2 February 2012.
R (KM) (by his mother and litigation friend JM) v Cambridgeshire County Council, heard 7 – 9 February 2012.
