Share it
From this morning until Tuesday 19 November 2013 is the appeal of Cramaso LLP v Ogilvie-Grant, Earl of Seafield & Ors. The respondents owned an estate, including a grouse moor, which was leased to an individual who formed the appellant limited liability partnership as a vehicle for his investment in the moor. The appellant was disappointed by the small numbers of grouse which it found on the moor after taking possession of it. It sought reduction of the lease and damages. It claimed that it was induced to enter into the lease as a result of a negligent misrepresentation in an email as to the number of grouse on the moor made by an employee of the respondents. At first instance it was found that the respondents, acting through their employee, had made a negligent misrepresentation in the email, but that the respondents did not owe a duty of care to the appellant as the appellant company was not in existence when the representation was made. The Supreme Court will determine whether the respondents owed a duty of care in negligence to the individual investing in the moor and, if they did, whether they also owed it to the appellant limited liability partnership.
In Courtroom 2 today is the expedited appeal of In the matter of KL (A Child). The Court will consider the correct approach to be taken in situations where a child is removed from their country of residence pursuant to a return order under the Hague Convention, where the order is made erroneously and overturned on appeal, and whether, in those circumstances, the parent from the care of whom the child was removed has a remedy to recover the child.
On Wednesday 20 November 2013 is the appeal of Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd. The appellant is a wheelchair user who relies on his wife to assist him when he travels by air. He and his wife booked a flight with the respondent company, and called the company twice to check they would be seated together on the flight. At the check-in for the flight they were informed that they were not seated together, but that the problem would be solved at the departure gate. At the gate they were informed that other passengers had already boarded so they would not be seated together but in aisle seats one behind the other. This arrangement meant it was difficult for the appellant’s wife to assist him with his catheterisation and other needs during the flight, and no assistance was forthcoming from the cabin crew. Although a declaration was granted that the respondent had breached the appellant’s rights under the EC Disability Regulation, the claim for damages was dismissed by reference to the limits imposed by the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air.
In Courtroom 2 on Thursday 21 November 2013 is the matter of AA (Somalia) v Entry Clearance Officer (Addis Ababa). The Supreme Court will determine the entitlement to entry clearance of a child seeking entry into the UK as a de facto adopted child of a sponsor who has previously been granted asylum as a refugee, where the provisions of paras 6, 309A and 352D of the Immigration Rules are not met.
On Wednesday 20 November 2013 the Supreme Court will hand down judgment in the following: Patel & Ors v SSHD, Anwar v SSHD, and Alam v SSHD; and Bucnys v Ministry of Justice, Lithuania, Sakalis v Ministry of Justice, Lithuania, and Lavrov v Ministry of Justice, Estonia.
There are no hearings listed in the Privy Council this week.
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding:
Re an application by Central Craigavon Ltd for Judicial Review, heard 15 May 2013.
R (Hodkin & Anor) v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, heard 18 July 2013
R (Edwards & Anor) v Environment Agency & Ors, heard 22 July 2013.
R v Ahmad & Anor, heard 29 July 2013.
G v Scottish Ministers & Anor, heard 7 – 8 October 2013.
In the matter of an application by Martin Corey for Judicial Review, heard 7 October 2013.
Bull & Anor v Hall & Anor, heard 9 – 10 October 2013.
R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v The Secretary of State for Transport & Anor, R (Heathrow Hub Limited & Anor) v The Secretary of State for Transport & Anor, and R (Buckinghamshire County Council & Ors) v The Secretary of State for Transport, heard 15 – 16 October 2013.
P (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council, and P & Anor (by their litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v Surrey County Council, heard 21 – 23 October 2013.
Zoumbas v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 28 October 2013.
Kennedy v The Charity Commission, heard 29 – 31 October 2013.
West London Mental Health NHS Trust v Chhabra, heard 29 October 2013.
Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria, heard 4 – 5 November 2013.
EM (Eritrea) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 6 – 7 November 2013.
In the matter of LC (Children) (Nos. 1 and 2), heard 11 November 2013.
Richardson & Anor v DPP, heard 12 November 2013.
Coventry & Ors v Lawrence & Anor, heard 12 – 14 November 2013.
