Latest Cases

Practice – Settlement. The Commercial Court held that the claimant company's application for summary judgment with regard to a threshold issue in its claim against the defendant solicitors' firm would be dismissed. The court held that the claim advanced by the claimant would be 'caught' by an earlier settlement agreement and the defendant was entitled to a declaration to that effect. 

Child – Custody. The Family Division granted Madonna permission to withdraw proceedings brought by her, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, for the summary return of her son to the United States. It held that r 29.4 of the Family Procedure Rules, SI 2010/2955, applied to applications in proceedings under the Hague Convention and, accordingly, the permission of the court was required to withdraw such proceedings. It ruled that, applying settled law to the facts, in circumstances where the mother and the father accepted that the Supreme Court of the State of New York had jurisdiction in the present matter, there were positive merits to permitting the mother to withdraw her application in the present jurisdiction. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a husband's appeal against the refusal of his application to strike out his wife's claim for financial relief. The court found that the judge had erred in finding that the husband was not entitled, in principle, to immunity due to his appointment as a Permanent Representative to the International Maritime Organisation, but upheld the judge's conclusion that the husband was permanently resident in the United Kingdom and that, in those circumstances, he was not entitled to immunity from as it applied only to claims in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions. 

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 13(1) of Directive (EC) 2004/48 should be interpreted as permitting a party injured by an intellectual property infringement, who claimed compensation for his material damage as calculated, in accordance with heading (b) of the second sub-paragraph of art 13(1) of that directive, on the basis of the amount of hypothetical royalties, also to claim compensation for the moral prejudice that he had suffered, as provided for under heading (a) of the second sub-paragraph of art 13(1) of that directive. 

Insolvency – Liquidation – Summary remedy against delinquent directors. Sheriff Court: Refusing an appeal in proceedings brought by the liquidator of a company under s 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, seeking a summary remedy against the company's sole director, in which the sheriff found that the defender had misapplied certain sums which should have been paid to the company and ordained him to contribute to its assets a sum equal to the total of those sums by way of compensation, the court, after repelling an objection to the competency of note of the appeal, held that although procedural in nature s 212 did provide a summary remedy and that there was no requirement that the court have regard only to actual loss to the company. 

Parent and child – Child protection – Grounds for referral to children's hearing. Sheriff Court: Refusing an appeal by a child's maternal grandmother, challenging the establishment of grounds for referral to a children's hearing, the court rejected contentions that the sheriff had failed to apply the correct test in relation to the particular ground found established, that his findings in fact were insufficient to entitle him to hold the ground for referral established, and that he had erred in the exercise of his discretion by allowing amendment to be made to the supporting facts once the evidence had been concluded and at the stage of closing submissions. 

Partnership – Existence of partnership disputed. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's appeal against a chief master's decision granting summary judgment to the defendants on the claimant's claim that a partnership had been created between the parties. The chief master had been entirely right to conclude that, on the evidence, no partnership had been created within the meaning of s 1(1) of the Partnership Act 1890. There was no evidence that the defendants had carried on business themselves and there was no realistic prospect of establishing that they had agreed to become partners for the purposes of the Act. 

Company – Administration order. The Chancery Division made a ruling with regard to the solvency of he defendant company, Lehman Brothers UK Holdings Ltd, which was in administration. The court held that the solvency condition in the standard terms of three loan agreements would be satisfied in the case of the defendant. As a result, the claimant company was entitled to the relief that it claimed as a creditor of the defendant. 

Damages and compensation – Crime – Ex gratia compensation scheme. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition in which the petitioner, who had spent seven years in prison before his murder conviction was quashed on appeal, sought reduction of the Scottish Ministers' decision to refuse his application for compensation under the ex gratia scheme compensating persons for periods spent in custody following wrongful conviction or charge resulting from serious default on the part of the police force or other public authority, the court held that the ministers' decision was one they were entitled to make and was not irrational. 

Education – Discrimination – Age and/or disability. Court of Session: In an appeal by a local education authority, which had refused a request to continue funding the school fees of the pursuer, who suffered from a disability (autism), for further year after he attained the age of 18, and also refused to grant him funding by way of a bursary, the court allowed the appeal in part, holding that while the sheriff was entitled to find that the local authority did discriminate against the pursuer and an award in respect of anxiety and upset should be affirmed, it was not open to the sheriff to make an award based on a finding of liability to pay the school fees for a further year.