Latest Cases

Feeds

Suppo v Jhundoo

Deed – Purchase of property. Following the breakdown of her marriage to her then husband (the respondent), the appellant sought a declaration that she was the beneficial owner of certain property, and relied on a deed made by the parties in 2001. The respondent argued unsuccessfully before the judge that the 2001 deed was inadmissible because it had been obtained by undue pressure. The judge found that an earlier deed (the purchase deed), which recorded the respondent as the purchaser of the property, was tainted by illegality. The Court of Appeal of Mauritius allowed the respondent's appeal and held that the 2001 deed was not a valid 'contre lettre' and that the purchase deed was not tainted with illegality. The Privy Council, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held that nothing in the Court of Appeal's decision had impugned the factual basis on which the judge had found that the purchase of the property had been tainted by illegality, and that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to decide otherwise. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the judge's order for the sale of the property was restored.

A v C

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The appellant father's appeal against findings of a district judge at a case management conference failed. The Family Court held that the district judge had not misapplied the revised FPR PD12J. She had not erred in deciding not to hear an oral application, and to list it for a proper hearing before another judge. Given the time constraints, that could not be said to have been wrong.

HMG Investment Holdings Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc

Misrepresentation – Negligent misrepresentation. The claimant company's claim failed, in a dispute concerning the provision of advice by the defendant bank. The Commercial Court held that there had been no misrepresentation by the bank's representative (B) in a conversation following which the claimant had entered into a new hedging agreement with the bank. Further, B had not acted negligently.

*R v Syed

Criminal law – Entrapment. There was no arguable case of entrapment on the facts, and no arguable case that there was any material difference between English law and the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence such as to cast any doubt on R v Looseley; Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2000) ([2001] 4 All ER 897) complying with art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his conviction for preparation of terrorist acts, but granted permission to cite the case.

*Bakhshiyeva (in her capacity as the foreign representative of the OJSC Internationl Bank of Azerbaijan) v Sberbank of Russia and others

Insolvency – Cross-border insolvency. It would be wrong to use the powers in art 21(1)(a) and (b) of Sch 1 to the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1030, or other provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law, to circumvent the English law rights of the English creditors under the rule in Gibbs & Sons v Société Industrielle Et Commerciale Des Métaux ([1886-90] All ER Rep 804). Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant foreign representative's appeal, held that it had no power to direct that the claims of the English creditors should continue to be stayed indefinitely, even after restructuring had come to an end.

Malik and others v Public Prosecutors Office in Augsberg, Germany

Extradition – European arrest warrant. The changes to the European arrest warrants did not alter their status as valid warrants and the provision of further information provided clarification, rather than uncertainty. Accordingly, the Administrative Court allowed the appellants' appeals against orders for their extradition to Germany to be tried for offences related to a revenue fraud only in respect of those offences for which the respondent judicial authority had made clear surrender was no longer sought.

Shmatko v Russian Federation

Extradition – Prohibition on torture. There was a very strong probability that, if extradited to the relevant region of the Russian Federation, the appellant would be held in conditions which involved serious violations of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the absence of any effective independent monitoring of prison conditions in the area further increased that probability. Accordingly, the Divisional Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the judge's decision to send his case to the Secretary of State to decide whether he was to be extradited to face allegations of three offences of fraud.

Angus Council, petitioner

Bankruptcy – Sequestration – Recovery of council tax – Warrants to cite. Sheriff Court: In three petitions for sequestration in which a local authority sought warrants to cite the respondents following the grant of summary warrants for unpaid council tax and the expiry of charges, the petitioner maintaining that although each expired charge sought payment of less than £3,000 it was a qualified creditor for the purposes of s 7 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 by virtue of other debts which the respondents were due to the council, the court concluded that as the petitioner had not provided prima facie evidence of any debt apart from those disclosed in the charges and, separately, as the procedures it adopted did not comply with either the underlying purposes of Sch 8 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 or what were now ss 2 and 7 of the 2016 Act, it should refuse to grant warrants to cite in each case.

O-Ono v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration – Judicial review – Curtailment of leave to remain – Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visa – Working in breach of conditions. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings in which a Nigerian national challenged the Home Secretary's decision to curtail his leave to remain for working in breach of the conditions of his Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visa, the court rejected contentions that the Lord Ordinary, in refusing the petition, had erred, firstly by proceeding on the basis that in order for the petitioner to comply with the conditions of his leave to remain there required to be a connection between the nature of the work he did and the nature of the work he had proposed to do when applying for leave, and secondly by refusing to explore the true nature of the petitioner's employment status.

A and others v Glasgow City Council

Personal injuries – Limitation of actions – Time bar – Discretion to allow action to proceed. Court of Session: In an action in which relatives of persons killed when a bin lorry driven by the defenders' employee collided with pedestrians sought reparation from the defenders, who pled that the claims in that action were time-barred, the instance of an earlier action raised within the triennium having fallen as the summons was not called within 3 months and a day of its passing signet, the court was in no doubt that the balance of the equities came down in the pursuers' favour and that it should exercise its power under s 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 to allow their claims to proceed.

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

In the Chair: the roads ahead

Kirsty Brimelow KC, Chair of the Bar, sets our course for 2026

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases