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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.