Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a decision to grant the appellant leave to remain in the United Kingdom for 30 months with a condition that there be no recourse to public funds (NRPF). The appellant's application had been correctly assessed by reference to the transitional provisions and a grant of leave to remain under the Immigration Rules, rather than discretionary leave, had been correct on the facts. There had been no infringement of s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 so far as the appellant's child had been concerned. The imposition of the NRPF condition had not been irrational or unfair. 

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. 

Sale of land – Trust. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant property developer's claim that the defendant, Lidl UK Gmbh, had purchased a property as part of a joint enterprise with the claimant and that Lidl held the property on trust for both parties. On the facts, there had been no arrangement or understanding, sufficient to give rise to a Pallant v Morgan equity. Accordingly the property was not being held on trust for the claimant as well as Lidl, as joint venturers. No agreement had been made and no assurances had been given by Lidl to the claimant to the effect that the claimant would definitely acquire an interest in the property if Lidl purchased it. 

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 

Proceeds of crime – Practice. The Administrative Court dismissed the applicants' application to set aside a property freezing order (PFO) and a disclosure order (DO) made against them, pursuant to ss 245A and 357 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. There had been no need to provide further information to the judge, and nothing unsettled the judge's conclusions that good arguable grounds for the grant of a PFO and reasonable grounds to suspect that property was recoverable or associated for the DO had been established. 

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.