Latest Cases

Husband and wife – Divorce – Financial provision. Court of Session: In divorce proceedings in which the wife sought a capital sum of £800,000, periodical allowance of £2,750 per month for an extended period, and an order for sale of the former matrimonial home on divorce, the court rejected the wife's motion for sale of the matrimonial home and ordered the transfer of her one-half share to the husband; held that the husband had established that there were special circumstances justifying a departure from the presumption of equal sharing of matrimonial property, but the wife had not; found that the capital sum payable to her was £189,298.25; and ordered periodical allowance for two years (£2,000 per month for one year and £1,500 per month for a further year) but not for the very extended period the wife sought. 

Sentencing – Road traffic offences – 'Tailgating' – Sentence discounting. Sheriff Appeal Court: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was charged with dangerous driving but at the trial diet offered a plea of guilty to driving without due care and attention which the prosecutor accepted, and was fined £225 and had his licence endorsed with 8 penalty points, the court, having categorised the appellant's driving, (which the sheriff had properly described as 'tailgating') as at the very top end of the careless scale, held that the sentence imposed was lenient, not excessive as the appellant claimed, and that the sheriff had not erred in not discounting the penalty points: arguably, he had given the appellant a generously discounted penalty by declining to disqualify and by restricting the penalty points imposed for reasons which unduly favoured the appellant. 

Competition – Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Competition Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal by British Telecommunications plc against a decision of the Office of Communications (Ofcom) contained in a statement in which Ofcom had expressed its concern that BT could distort the development of competition in superfast broadband services (SFBB) to customers by setting an insufficient margin between the price of virtual unbundled local access (VULA) and the price of its retail packages which used VULA as an input. The tribunal rejected BT's range of arguments that Ofcom's market analysis was deficient and could not withstand profound and rigorous scrutiny. 

Practice – Striking out. The Technology and Construction Court granted a local authority's application to strike out a claim brought by an unsuccessful tenderer, under the Public Contract Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102 (the Regulations), where a contract for council tax and similar debt collection and enforcement services by bailiffs and enforcement agencies amounted to a 'services concession contract' and therefore fell outside the Regulations. The claim was unarguable in law and fact and there were procedural and substantive authorities which made it plain that a CPR Pt 7 claim should not be amended so as to turn it into a claim for judicial review, as requested by the claimant. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant Nepalese national's appeal concerning the respondent Entry Clearance Officer's (ECO) refusal of his application for entry clearance to settle in the United Kingdom. It considered whether the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had erred in law in having assessed his claim under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as at 2013, rather than as at the date of the ECO's original decision some three years earlier. 

Administrative law – Judicial review. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the decision of the defendant housing association with charitable status to decline to approve the exchange of his assured tenancy. On the facts of the case, the defendant had not been exercising a public function in relation to the claimant's tenancy. 

Personal Injury: Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. PSLA and total damages of £5,500. 

Adoption – Order. The Family Division, on an application for an adoption order in respect of a three-year-old child by a couple with whom she had been with since she was about eight months old, held that adoption was not only in the child's best interests, but that it was the only possible outcome that met her needs and that was capable of promoting her welfare throughout her life. The mother's consent to the making of an adoption order would be dispensed with, on the statutory ground that the welfare of the child required the order to be made. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The Family Division held in the wife's case for financial remedy that an award of £8.8m was fair having regard to all the relevant factors. In so deciding, it refused to give effect to the wife's submission that she was in fact entitled to an award of £29m. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection, on the Public Guardian's application to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for property and financial affairs, held that, in circumstances where the only evidence of the donor's capacity was in the Court of Protection General Visitor's report, which was ambivalent on the question of her capacity to revoke the LPA, an assessment by a Court of Protection Special Visitor was required prior to considering revoking the LPA and making a substantive deputyship appointment. Pending receipt of that report, the attorneys' authority to act under the LPA would be suspended and the donor's daughter would be appointed as an interim deputy.