Latest Cases

Criminal evidence and procedure – Human trafficking – Mutual corroboration – Sentencing. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals against conviction and sentence by an appellant who was found guilty of eight offences of human trafficking, the court rejected contentions that the sheriff misdirected jury in relation to mutual corroboration in directing them that there was a legal sufficiency and that his use of the word 'rule' on twelve occasions, when describing mutual corroboration, amounted to a misdirection; furthermore it held that only a custodial sentence could have been regarded as appropriate and that the sheriff's selection of 3 years' imprisonment could not be described as excessive. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 7 of Council Directive (EEC) 93/13. The requests had been made in proceedings between, in one case, Mr Sales Sinués and Caixabank SA and, in the other, Mr Drame Ba and Catalunya Caixa SA, both relating to the annulment of contractual terms in mortgage loan agreements. 

Company – Director. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on an appeal against findings that the appellants had dishonestly assisted A, the 100% owner and sole director of the respondent company, to breach his duties to that company under s 175 of the Companies Act 2006, and had dishonestly assisted A in misapplying £1.25m of the company's money. It dismissed the appeal, save that the judge's conclusion that the appellants were liable to compensate the company for a particular sum of £500,000, as part of the misapplication claim, would be reversed. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Latvia to face prosecution for four thefts alleged to have been committed in 2007. In particular, it rejected the submission that he should have been discharged because the issue of his surrender was res judicata on account of his discharge in Scotland in extradition proceedings for substantially the same matters, as the principle of res judicata had no application in extradition proceedings. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant's claim against a solicitors' firm and a conveyancing firm (HOC) that had acted for D. The claimant had purportedly purchased property from D which D had falsely represented as being his own. HOC had been in breach of contract and/or duty. Neither of the defendants had acted reasonably, and so they could not obtain relief under s 61 of the Trustee Act 1925. They had to bear equal responsibility. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Chancery Division dismissed an application by the claimant company, Marussia Communications Ireland Ltd, for summary judgment in a case concerning the alleged breach of the claimant's trade mark in the use of the name of its car by the defendants' Formula One team. Although the evidence came nowhere near suggesting that the claimant had consented to the defendants using the name, issues concerning art 9.1 of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark would have to be determined at trial. 

Contract – Construction. The Chancery Division, Companies Court dismissed the employer's application for an injunction to restrain the contractor from presenting a winding up petition on the basis that the contractor had followed the procedure set out in the contract and there was no doubt concerning the liability of the employer to make the interim payments claimed in applications. 

Criminal procedure – Sheriff's charge – Theft – Mens rea. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of the theft of a substantial amount of stock from the company of which he was the managing director, the court rejected contentions that the sheriff had failed to give adequate directions on the mens rea of theft and had failed to direct the jury appropriately not to speculate. 

Solicitor – Costs. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claimant solicitors claim for recovery of 50% of the final sum recovered on behalf of the defendants from the bank under a Contingency Fee Agreement on that basis that the agreement properly construed had not required that any offer of compensation by the bank needed to be obtained through the claimant's efforts, nor was such a term necessary to give the agreement business efficacy. 

Immigration – Leave to enter as child of refugee – Validity of application. Court of Session: Granting the prayer of a judicial review petition brought by the adopted daughters of a refugee, who applied for entry clearance to join him in the UK and whose application, presented as 'applications for family reunion in terms of para 352D of the Immigration Rules', was rejected without its merits being considered, an Entry Clearance Officer concluding it was not properly made under para 352D, the court held that the petitioner's application for leave to enter was 'made under' para 352D of the Immigration Rules and therefore it was fee exempt and it ought to have been considered on its merits.