*R (on the application of Patel) v General Medical Council

Medical practitioner Registration. The claimant had wished to study to become a doctor and contacted the General Medical Council to ensure that the course he wished to study, which consisted predominantly of distance learning, would meet the GMC's requirements. He received a written assurance that the course was accepted. Subsequently the GMC revised its requirements and refused to recognise the claimant's qualification. The claimant's application for judicial review was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed his appeal, finding that he had had a legitimate expectation that his qualification would be accepted, that it had been unreasonable for the GMC to adopt new criteria without considering the impact it would have on the claimant and that there was no sufficient public interest which outweighed the unfairness to the claimant of refusing to honour the assurance that he had been given.

Barratt Homes Ltd v Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig (Welsh Water)

Nuisance Sewer. The claimant property developer commenced proceedings against the defendant sewerage undertaker in nuisance, trespass to land and negligence arising from the defendant's refusal, in breach of its statutory duty under s106 of the to permit the claimant to connect to the public sewer. The Queen's Bench Division held, inter alia, that the claimant was entitled to pursue its claims in nuisance and trespass to land. The defendant appealed and the claimant cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal as, inter alia, the claims for damages in nuisance and trespass could not succeed.

*R (on the application of Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd) v East Sussex County Council

Commons Registration. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against a decision by the Administrative Court in which the judge held that registration of a beach as a town or village green pursuant to s15 of the was incompatible with the statutory powers and duties of Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd (NPP) as owner of the beach. The court held that whilst the court did not underestimate the consequences that registration of West Beach as a town or village green might have on the future discharge of NPP's statutory functions, those consequences did not provide a proper ground for holding that the land was not registrable.

Wright v Michael Wright Supplies Ltd and another

Practice Civil litigation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge had erred by proceeding to determine the issues between the parties in the absence of an oral hearing in circumstances where the defence had sought to rely on the oral evidence of a witness whose evidence had been highly relevant.

R v A

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division allowed a father's application for summary return pursuant to the Hague Convention in circumstances where the children were found to have been habitually resident in the United States of America at the time of their removal by their mother.

R (on the application of Das) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Detention. The Administrative Court held that the claimant, an Indian citizen, was entitled to a declaration that the entire second period of her detention following a failed asylum bid in the UK, was unlawful. However, she was only entitled to nominal damages for false imprisonment in relation to that detention.

*R (on the application of A) v Lowestoft Magistrates' Court

Judicial review Application for judicial review. Having pleaded guilty to being drunk in a public place while having the charge of a child under the age of seven years, the claimant councillor, who had a two-and-a-half year old daughter, B, applied for an order for reporting conditions pursuant to s39 of the . The magistrates' court refused the application and the claimant brought judicial review proceedings seeking to challenge that decision. In dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that on any sensible construction of s39 of the 1933 Act, the criminal proceedings had been taken 'in respect of' and thus 'concerned' B, but that, in all the circumstances of the case, the justices had had a reasonable basis for concluding that no order under s39 had been justified.

*SS (Zimbabwe) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Asylum seeker. The appellants, who were citizens of Zimbabwe, had all been refused asylum in the United Kingdom. Their appeals had been refused by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), with findings having been made that they were not credible witnesses. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in remitting the appeals for redetermination by the tribunal, held that a finding of lack of credibility was capable of real relevance in deciding whether an appeal should be remitted and, further, there was no unfairness that justified a refusal to remit an appeal because it would then be determined by the tribunal in the light of restated country guidance.

FK (Botswana) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Asylum seeker. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissing the appeals, held that the removal of the claimants to Botswana had been proportionate, since the fact that they had been law-abiding had not detracted from the fact that the maintenance of a generally applicable immigration policy was, albeit indirectly, a legitimate aim for the purposes of art8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

*Parshall v Hackney

Land registration Rectification of register. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant's appeal against a decision of the High Court upholding a decision of a deputy adjudicator of the Land Registry refusing rectification of the register in respect of a disputed piece of land. In circumstances where the disputed land had been mistakenly included in the respondent's title (No 31), the court held that the previous owners of the appellant's land had not been dispossessed of the disputed land by the owners of No 31, and their possession of the disputed land during the relevant period was not 'adverse possession' within the meaning of the .