Latest Cases

Criminal procedure – Rape – Standard of interpretation at trial – Judge's charge. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant, whose native tongue was Korean, against his conviction for rape, the court rejected contentions that the appellant had not received a fair trial because the interpreter at the trial had impeded rather than improved his understanding of the proceedings and that the trial judge had materially misdirected the jury in her directions on reasonable belief. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 should be interpreted as meaning that where two actions — which had different subject-matters and bases and which were not connected by a link of subordination or incompatibility — were brought against several defendants, the fact that the upholding of one of those actions was potentially capable of affecting the extent of the right whose protection was sought by the other action did not suffice to give rise to a risk of irreconcilable judgments within the meaning of that provision. 

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 – 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. 

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. 

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 – 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. 

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.