Latest Cases

Adult incapacity – Guardianship order – Entitlement to bring application for guardianship order – Meaning of 'person claiming an interest'. Sheriff Court: In an application under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 in which the pursuer, a solicitor, sought the appointment of a financial guardian to an 87-year-old adult, contending that she was a 'person claiming an interest', the court held that 'interest' in relation to the property and financial affairs of an adult must denote some form of patrimonial interest, the interest the pursuer claimed was not a sufficient interest such as to entitle her to bring the application, and she was not, in terms of the 2000 Act, a person claiming an interest: the court therefore refused to warrant the application. 

Negligence – Duty of care – Roads authority. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuer, who suffered injury when he was thrown from his bicycle as he cycled over a bridge, contended that the accident was caused by the presence of metal strips set into the road surface, the court held that the defenders were in breach of the common law duties they owed to the pursuer: the metal strips posed a hazard to road users; the pursuer was riding with due skill and care; and the hazard posed by the road at the bridge would have been apparent to a roads authority of ordinary competence using reasonable care, which would have taken steps to correct it. 

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. 

Minor – Medical treatment. The Family Division held that it was in the best interests of a seven-year-old child, who had profound disabilities and needs, to grant the declarations sought by the applicant NHS trust, which sought the court's permission to treat the child in accordance with the treating clinicians' clinical discretion, including whether or not to resuscitate her in the event of a collapse. 

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. 

Costs – Orders for costs. The Administrative Court determined the costs consequences, following its decision, dismissing an application by the respondent for the discharge of a property freezing order (see [2016] All ER (D) 195 (Feb)). It ordered the respondent to pay the National Crime Agency (the NCA) £3,460, which provided a 50% discount from the NCA's total bill of costs would be discounted to reflect its non-disclosure. 

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 67(3) of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 had be interpreted as not precluding a member state from refusing to aggregate periods of employment necessary to qualify for unemployment benefit to supplement income from part-time employment, where that employment had not been preceded by any period of insurance or of employment in that member state. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The Chancery Division allowed the defendant company's application to strike out a claim against it where, on the true construction of the relationship between the parties, certain investment arrangements were to be treated as forming part of a bespoke self-invested pension plan. The investments did not fall within the exemption provided by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Collective Investment Schemes) Order 2001 (SI 2001/1062). The paragraphs identified by the defendant would be struck out. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant hospital had been in breach of duty in not administering prophylactic heparin to the claimant on 29 June, following is admission for post operative pain, when on a balance of probabilities it would have prevented the pulmonary embolism which had subsequently occurred. 

Data protection – Subject access request. The Queen's Bench Division allowed an application by the claimants under CPR Pt 8, and held that the defendant had failed to comply with its subject access request duties pursuant to s 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, where neither the crime exemption nor legal privilege exemption applied, and refused to exercise its discretion in the defendant's favour.