Latest Cases

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.

Contract – Damages for breach. The appellant's appeal in respect of his claim for breach of contract against the respondent IVF clinic was dismissed. The clinic had implanted an embryo containing the appellant's gametes into his former partner (R), from whom the appellant had, by then, separated, without the appellant's consent (his signature having been forged). R had later given birth to a child. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled, among other things, that the legal policy which prevented recoverability of the cost of the upbringing of a healthy child tortious claims applied to the appellant's claim for breach of contract.

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Public interest immunity. The Competition and Markets Authority (the CMA) was granted various warrants under s 28 of the Competition Act 1998, concerning an investigation into suspected anti-competitive behaviours in relation to a number of pharmaceutical drugs. The defendant (Concordia) applied to have the warrant granted in respect of it discharged to the extent that it applied to certain medicines. Prior to that application being heard, the Chancery Division considered whether Concordia could have sight of certain confidential material submitted in support of the CMA's application or whether non-disclosure could be justified, as the CMA submitted, on the ground of public interest immunity.

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court considered the validity of three patents relating to pharmaceutical compositions for inhalation. The defendant company (Ventura) alleged that the claimant companies (together, GSK) had infringed the patents by the manufacture and sale of dry powder inhalers containing ingredients used to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The court held that GSK had not established that any of the patents were obvious over any of the cited prior art. Further, Vectura had not proved that GSK's process and products had infringed the patents. Furthermore, the patents were all invalid on the grounds of insufficiency. GSK's process, and hence the products obtained as a direct result of that process, were obvious over the prior art.

Contract – Construction. The declaration sought by the claimant employer, that, on the proper construction of practical completion within an amended JCT 2011 design and build contract, it was possible to achieve completion of one section of the works prior to the completion of the whole of the works, was granted. The Technology and Construction Court held that the interpretation of practical completion contended for on behalf of the defendant contractor, and accepted by the adjudicator, had not accorded with the ordinary meaning of the words used.

Immigration – Tier 1 entrepreneur. The respondent Secretary of State's evidence that a Companies House current appointment report had not accompanied the first appellant's Tier 1 entrepreneur application would be accepted. The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appellants' appeal against the judge's permission to apply for judicial review to challenge that decision, further held that the appellants' documents did not demonstrate that the first appellant had been continuously engaged in business activity.

Prison – Release on licence. The National Probation Service's decision to set an exclusion zone that included the claimant's family home, where he wanted to move on his release from prison where he was serving a sentence for manslaughter on licence, had not been unlawful. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's application for judicial review, held that the interests of the claimant's wife and daughter had been given them due weight and the National Probation Service had been justified in finding them outweighed by the concerns of the victim's family.

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The total amount which the husband had to pay was £4.05m following the wife's application for financial provision. The Family Court based that on an initial lump sum in respect of housing and capitalised maintenance of £3.65m, with an additional £400,000, being a little bit less than half of the total sum due on her litigation loan.

Human rights – Prohibition on torture. The appellant's claim that the respondent Secretary of State had breached art 3, as he had been subjected to physical and mental torture over a period of time while in prison by those who had a duty of care to him, was entirely unparticularised. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing his appeal against the judge's refusal to reinstate that claim, further held that it was not appropriate to consider witness statements available but not provided to the judge.

Passport – United Kingdom passport. The cancellation of each claimant's passport had been necessary and proportionate, and the defendant Secretary of State had not been legally obliged to give them advance notice of the basis on which she had been minded to cancel their passports. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review of the decision on the behalf of the defendant Secretary of State's to cancel each of their British passports.