Latest Cases

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. 

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 – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that arts 23(5) and 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 should be interpreted as meaning that, in a dispute concerning the non-performance of a contractual obligation, in which the applicant had brought proceedings before the courts of the member state in which the respondent had its seat, the jurisdiction of those courts could stem from art 24 of that regulation where the respondent did not dispute their jurisdiction, even though the contract between the two parties contained a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country. 

Town and country planning – Development. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on two conjoined appeals concerning the meaning and effect of para 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF). Among other things, it held that, '[relevant] policies for the supply of housing', meant 'relevant policies affecting the supply of housing'. A 'relevant' policy was simply a policy relevant to the application for planning permission before the decision-maker, relevant either because it was a policy relating specifically to the provision of new housing in the local planning authority's area or because it bore upon the principle of the site in question being developed for housing. 

Income tax – Charge to tax. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the Revenue and Customs Commissioners' appeal concerning whether an employee was liable to income tax in respect of a car leased to him by his employer on arm's length commercial terms, including lease charges at full market value. The tribunals had been right to have decided that a charge to income tax arose under Ch 6 of Pt 3 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 only if the terms on which a car was leased to an employee conferred a benefit on the employee in the ordinary sense of that word, and the employees in the present case had received no such benefit. 

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. 

Shipping – Charterparty. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant owner's appeal against a finding of the tribunal that the defendant charterers had been entitled to order a vessel hired from the owner to load further cargo. The court held that, on the true construction of the charter between the parties, the charterers had been entitled to order the vessel to load further cargo at a port in Oman. 

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. 

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. 

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.