Latest Cases

Sentence – Robbery. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, on the facts, a sentence of 27 months' imprisonment for an offence of attempted robbery had not been unduly lenient. Although a much higher starting point might have been expected, namely one of four years, that had not rendered the adopted starting point of three years' imprisonment unduly lenient. 

Limitation of actions – Prescription. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in an action in which the pursuers, who had instructed the defenders, a firm of solicitors, to serve notices to quit on a tenant to terminate agricultural tenancies over three fields, sought damages on account of the defenders' alleged breach of contract in drafting ineffective notices to quit, the court agreed with the approach of the Lord Ordinary, who upheld the defenders' plea of prescription and absolved them, concluding that an application of the interpretation of s 11(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 adopted by the majority of the Supreme Court in David T Morrison & Co Ltd v ICL Plastics Ltd required that the reclaiming motion be refused, but also that the pursuers were put on notice as to loss, injury or damage more than five years before the action was raised. 

Sentence – Sexual offences against children. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a community order for 3 years, with a rehabilitation activity requirement for 60 days, for 8 counts of sexual activity with a child aged 14, had not been unduly lenient in the particular circumstances of the present case. 

Damages – Personal injury. The Queens' Bench Division, in a case where liability was admitted in respect of historic sexual abuse by a scout camp leader, heard evidence in respect of the amount of an award of damages for the claimant who had been one of the victims. The court allowed an award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity but rejected any award for past or future loss of earnings, for handicap on the open labour market or for therapy and no separate award by way of aggravated damages. 

Parent and child – Specific issue order – Relocation. Sheriff Court: In a case in which the mother of two young boys, aged 10 and 4, sought a specific issue order permitting her to relocate with them to Exeter, the court refused to make the order sought as it was not satisfied that the proposed relocation was in the children's best interests or that it was better that such an order be made than no order be made at all. 

Patent – Infringement. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant companies' claim that the defendant had infringed their patent, European Patent (UK) 1 656 306, entitled 'opening devices for foil closures'. Neither of the defendant's products fell within the scope of either of the claimants' claims. It followed that none of the defendant's acts had infringed the patent. 

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. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal in respect of the applicable measure of damages, which arose out of the admitted negligence on the part of the defendant solicitors' firm in respect of a property transaction. In upholding the judge's award of £250, representing the cost of an application to the local authority to remove a planning restriction on the property, it held that, by reason of the subsequent removal of the restriction, the claimants had suffered no loss and there was nothing in respect of which they required to be compensated. 

Banking and finance – Lending and security – Performance bond – Notice calling up bond – Validity. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in an action seeking payment of a sum said to be due by the defender under a performance guarantee bond it had granted in favour of the pursuer in security of the obligations of the operator of an opencast mine to restore the land following the cessation of mining operations, in which the defender asserted that the notice the pursuer served to call up its liability under the bond was invalid, the court held that the Lord Ordinary was correct to conclude that the notice sent by the pursuer was an effective notice in the light of the terms of the bond. 

Prison – Prison conditions. The Administrative Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision by a prison to move the claimant's civil partner to a separate cell in circumstances where the claimant was disabled and contended that she had required her partner's assistance. The prison's 'intimate relationship restriction' had not been applied inflexibly and had been required to maintain order and discipline. Her rights under arts 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been engaged. Further, there had been no breach by the prison of ss 20 and 149 of the Equality Act 2010.