Latest Cases

National health service – Pharmaceutical services. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant company's application for judicial review of the defendant NHS's decision to grant the first interested party the right to open a pharmacy, although the claimant had already been given such grant and there was only one suitable premises in the village. The NHS had erred in law by having disregarded the relevant consideration that only one building was available within the best estimate of location given by both grant applicants. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) to dismiss her appeal against the First-tier Tribunal's decision to allow the respondent Jamaican national's appeal against deportation, and remitted the matter to the UT. Underlying the appeal was an important policy question as to the public interest in the deportation of foreign criminals, applied in the context of an individual who, although guilty of serious criminal conduct, had lawfully resided in the United Kingdom for over 40 years. 

Warrant – Search warrant. The Divisional Court held that the common law right to information after the issue of a search warrant did not require sufficient information to be provided to the subject of the warrant to assess its legality against the statutory conditions. That applied to a warrant issued under s 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and on an application to retain material under s 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. PSLA of £2,650, with total damages of £3,294. The claimant suffered severe neck pain, moderate upper back pain and severe persistent headaches as a result of his car being hit from the rear by another vehicle. Treatment lasted until four months after the accident. 

Negligence – Information or advice. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimants' claim that the defendant advisory company had been negligent in its report on commercial due diligence in the purchase of a company by the claimants. The analysis provided by the defendant had been entirely reasonable and complete on the basis of the information provided to it. It had not acted in breach of duty or negligently in any respect. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Evidence of child witnesses – Disclosure/ inspection. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by the Crown against a judge's decision, at a preliminary hearing, ordering disclosure by delivering copies of disc recordings of police and social work Joint Investigative Interviews (JIIs) of the complainers to the agents for the respondents, who faced charges of sexual abuse involving two younger boys, the court held that recordings of the JIIs were label productions in the case and at this stage the accused was entitled to see the labels, not as a result of the disclosure regime but in terms of the statute relative to the lists of productions: given that the labels were to be used as evidence in chief it was difficult to conceive of a situation in which the court would refuse an application to borrow them for a specified purpose (including copying), albeit perhaps subject to conditions, and the court had effectively granted that application 

Claim form – Service. The proceedings related to liability insurance policies issued by the claimant company. The Commercial Court considered the claimant's application for an anti-suit injunction to preclude the defendant from pursuing claims under global policies in Australia. The dispute concerned global liability policies issued in England and a 'broadform' liability policy issued in Australia. The court held that, following settled principle, proceedings would be on foot in the courts of both Australia and England. The English proceedings would be stayed to allow the Australia issues to be resolved first. 

Personal Injury – Liability – Contributory negligence. Sheriff Court: In an action in which the pursuer sought damages in respect of injuries she sustained following a collision between the bicycle she was riding and the defender's dog, the court held that the primary cause of the collision was the defender's fault in failing to take appropriate steps to control his dog on a public road and thereby allowing it to run into the path of the pursuer's bicycle, however the pursuer, having failed to moderate her speed or to be aware of the potential presence of hazards around a blind bend, or to have given any warning of her impending approach, contributed to the loss, injury and damage she sustained as the direct result of the collision: liability would be apportioned as 70% to the defender and 30% to the pursuer. 

Sentencing – Road traffic offences – Forfeiture. Sheriff Appeal Court: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who pled guilty to driving with excess alcohol and a further offence of failure to provide a specimen committed 9 days later, and who was fined a total of £1,950, disqualified for 3 years and whose car (valued at £15,000) was ordered to be forfeited, the court held that when the level of the reading relating to the drink driving offence (nearly three times over the limit) was taken along with repeat offending a matter of days later, all against the background of the appellant's subsequent 'cavalier' attitude to his offending, it was entirely legitimate for the sheriff to consider a forfeiture order, and the overall disposal could not be described as excessive on the facts and circumstances presented to her. 

Negligence – Personal injury. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the claimant's appeal in a personal injury action against the judge's finding that the claimant had not been found by him to be a credible witness and that on the balance of probabilities the claimant had not satisfied him of the account as he had changed significant details. The court held that the judge had been entitled to so find.