Latest Cases

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. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that EU law should be interpreted as meaning that where, in accordance with the applicable national law, a plea alleging infringement of national law raised for the first time before the national court hearing an appeal on a point of law was admissible only if that plea was based on public policy, a plea alleging infringement of the right to be heard, as guaranteed by EU law, raised for the first time before that same court, had to be held to be admissible if that right, as guaranteed by national law, satisfied the conditions required by national law for it to be classified as a plea based on public policy, that being a matter for the referring court to determine. 

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. 

Building contract – Engineer. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the true construction of a contract between the parties, the defendant company was entitled to recover payment of liquidated damages from the claimant company without agreement or determination by an engineer of the defendant's entitlement to liquidated damages. 

Immigration – Leave to remain – Right to family life. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by a Pakistani national against a decision of the Upper Tribunal adhering to a decision of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) upholding the respondent's decision to refuse his application for leave to remain in the UK as the spouse of a British citizen, the court held that the FTT was entitled to conclude that the appellant's case did not amount to a disproportionate interference with his or his wife's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: there were no weighty or exceptional factors which could have justified granting leave outwith the Immigration Rules on the basis of art 8 proportionality. 

Minor – Custody. The Family Division held that the father's defences under arts 12 and 13 of the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 had not been made out and the two children retained by him in the United Kingdom had to be returned to Spain where their mother resided and where they had been habitually resident. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.