Latest Cases

Judicial review – Foster carer – Deregistration. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a petitioner who was jointly registered with her husband as a foster carer by the respondent local authority, and who sought reduction of the respondents' decisions to deregister her and her husband following the respondents' own investigation of serious allegations about the husband's conduct made by a child who had been in the petitioner and her husband's care (the police having investigated but taken no further action), the court rejected the petitioner's contentions that reduction of the respondents' decisions should be granted because they had failed to adequately take into account her blameless position and had failed to discuss with her the possibility of a variation of the joint registration. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post judgment relief. The Chancery Division allowed the claimants' application for a notification injunction, by which they would be notified if the defendants sought to dispose of certain assets. The claimants alleged that they had been caused to enter into business projects that had disadvantaged them and advantaged the defendants, as a result of intimidation by the defendants. The court held that, on the evidence and taking into account that the proposed notification injunction was less intrusive than a freezing order, it was appropriate to conclude that there was a risk of dissipation. 

Limitation of actions – Prescription – Triennium. Court of Session: In an action, raised in July 2015, in which the pursuer sought reparation for sexual and physical abuse allegedly suffered in the early 1960s whilst at a boarding school run by the defenders, the court did not accept that it had been established on a balance of probabilities that the pursuer attended the school on or after 26 September 1964, which meant that the whole of his claim had been extinguished by the long negative prescription; even if that was wrong his action was now time-barred because the triennium was long expired; and even if some or all of his claim had not been extinguished by the long negative prescription the court would have refused to exercise its discretionary power in favour of allowing the action to proceed. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's acceptance of the judge's determination that his tariff should not be reduced. Although a victim personal statement should not have been considered by the judge if its author had been unwilling to have it disclosed to the claimant, the judge's decision had been inevitable. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Chancery Division, on the claimant's application for an order, under s 51(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, that RG, who had been joined as a party to the present proceedings for the purposes of costs only, pay the costs of its claim against the first defendant, held that the present was an exceptional case and it was just to make an order for costs against RG. RG was ordered to pay the claimant's costs incurred from the date on which the first defendant had filed its acknowledgement of service. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division held, in dismissing the claimant's case in negligence against the Secretary of State for Health, that there had been no breach of duty in respect of the delivery of a twin in circumstances where she was deprived of oxygen and suffered serious brain injury. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The county court dismissed the claimant's claim for damages for physical and emotional abuse caused by a licensee on parole after a murder conviction. The Secretary of State had not owed the claimant a duty of care to investigate the initial allegations that she had been in a relationship with the licensee in a different, more thorough, manner, nor had he owed a duty to warn the claimant of the licensee's background. 

European Union – Companies. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that European Union law should be interpreted as meaning that: – the law applicable following a cross-border merger by acquisition to the interpretation of a loan contract taken out by the acquired company, such as the contracts at issue in the main proceedings, to the performance of the obligations under the contract and to how those obligations were extinguished was the law which was applicable to the contract before the merger; – the provisions governing the protection of the creditors of the acquired company, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, were those of national law which were applicable to that company. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 was to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the application of that provision, a natural person could not have at the same time a normal place of residence in both a member state and in a third country. 

Value added tax – Appeal. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appellants' appeal against a finding of the First Tier Tribunal that the sale of the freehold interest in the property to them by the trustee had been chargeable to VAT at the standard rate. The interpretation of para 30 of Sch 10 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 that the appellants put forward was a strained construction, and the issue would be decided in favour of the defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners.