Latest Cases

Commercial contract – Construction – Exclusion clause. Court of Session: In a dispute between the owner and the occupier of a multi-storey car park concerning liability for repairs, in which the owner argued that on the occupier's receipt of collateral warranties and the issue of a defects certificate it had no further liability, but the occupier objected that there had been no final inspection and it had not received the defects certificate, the court construed the agreement entered into before the construction of the car park as meaning that the parties had to comply with the contractual scheme: absent that condition being fulfilled there could be no valid defects certificate and no exclusion of the owner's liability. 

Sentencing – Road traffic offences – Causing death by dangerous driving. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing a Crown appeal against the 4-year sentence of imprisonment, discounted from 6 years, which was imposed on a respondent who pled guilty to an offence of causing death by dangerous driving, the contention being that the sentence was unduly lenient, the court concluded that the judge's selection of a headline sentence of 6 years' imprisonment could not be said to fall outwith the range of disposals open to him, nor had he erred in selecting the level of discount which he did. 

Sentence – Aggravating features. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, provided guidance as to the proper sentencing approach and practice for considering the aggravating feature of prevalence. In applying that test, it had not been satisfactory to have taken account of prevalence in respect of the defendant's four drug convictions. Accordingly, the defendant's total sentence of four years and ten month's detention in a Young Offenders Institution would be reduced to four years. 

Town and country planning – Established use. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decisions to grant a certificate of lawfulness in respect of operational development and to refuse to take enforcement action. Consideration had been given to use, although it had not been required, and the authority's decision not to take enforcement action pending further applications had been a lawful and legitimate exercise of its discretion. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant local authority's appeal by way of case stated against the second respondent magistrates' court's acquittal of the first respondent of two offences of breaching an enforcement notice issued by the appellant local authority against the change of use of a property to two self-contained flats without planning permission. 

Contract – Formation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the judge's decision that there had been a binding contract between the parties, formed by the claimant (Reveille) accepting through conduct a written agreement, which had been signed by the defendant (Anotech), but not Reveille. It held that Reveille had waived the provision that there would be no binding contract in the absence of its signature on the agreement, and there had been no prejudice from that to Anotech. There had been acceptance by conduct on Reveille's part of the terms of the agreement, which had led to a binding contract. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division, in a clinical negligence case brought by the claimant by her mother as litigation friend, held that there had been no negligence in the performance of a correctional operation preformed on the claimant which left her with damage to the cauda equina with consequent lower paralysis. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's grant of planning permission to the first interested party for a three-turbine electricity generation facility. None of the claimants' five grounds of challenge had been made out. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Chancery Division made rulings in a case concerning the disclosure of information about the running of a trust to the claimant, who was the daughter of the testatrix. As disclosure had occurred, only costs remained. The court held that the costs of both parties would be paid out of the trust fund, in each case on the indemnity basis. It further considered the extent to which trustees could seek to claim privilege as against beneficiaries in relation to certain documents and what, if anything, the defendants would be entitled to recover if they had been ordered to pay the costs of the claimant. 

Jury – Verdict. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, provided guidance as to the proper approach where it was contended that the verdicts of the jury had been inconsistent. It was held that the law ought to return to and apply the clear test set out in R v Stone ((13 December 1954, unreported)), as formally adopted in R v Durante ([1972] 3 All ER 1056). Applying that test, the defendants' convictions had not been unsafe.