Latest Cases

Education – School closure. Sheriff Court: Dismissing an appeal by an education authority against a decision of the School Closure Review Panel, refusing to consent to the authority's proposal to close four primary schools in North West Skye, the court held that the panel had not erred in law in finding that the appellant had failed in a significant regard to have special regard to the rural factors set out in s 12 of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerned the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The request had been made in proceedings between Flight Refund Ltd, a company established in the United Kingdom, and Deutsche Lufthansa AG, a company established in Germany, concerning a debt in respect of compensation claimed on account of a flight delay. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Setting aside acquittal – New prosecution –Alleged admissions. High Court of Justiciary: In an application by the Crown to set aside an acquittal and grant authority to bring a new prosecution, relying on alleged admissions made or becoming known after the date of acquittal, the respondent having stood trial for murder in 1992 and jury having found the charge against him not proven, the court held that the statements relied on could not reasonably and fairly be construed as admissions, except for a statement made to a prison officer, however that statement was inadmissible and accordingly the application must fail. 

Insolvency – Bankruptcy – Balancing of accounts in bankruptcy. Sheriff Court: In a commercial action in which the pursuer sued for payment of three liquid sums the defender had agreed to pay in settlement of three payment protection insurance (PPI) claims by the pursuer against it, and which the defender now refused to pay, arguing it was entitled to withhold payment of the liquid sums and to set them off against greater alleged indebtedness said to be due by the pursuer to it under loan contracts entered into many years earlier—in the period between the dates of the loan contracts and related PPI sales (in 1997 and 2003) and the dates of the PPI agreements (in 2014) the pursuer having become insolvent and granted a trust deed in favour of her creditors, the defender having submitted claims in the trust deed for payment of roughly the same aggregate indebtedness now founded upon by way of set‑off, the pursuer's trustee having adjudicated on those claims, the defender having received payment of dividends on the claims and, in 2012, the pursuer having been discharged from the trust deed—the court held that the defender was entitled to plead set-off by application of the principle of balancing of accounts in bankruptcy. 

Agriculture – EU financial assistance – Damages for breach of community law. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuers sought reparation for loss and damage said to have been caused by the defenders' breach of community law occasioned by the Rural Payments Agency, acting on the defenders' behalf, withdrawing the first pursuer's recognition as a producer organisation (PO) under the EU's Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Scheme, the court held that the second to 21st pursuers, as members of a PO, could relevantly advance claims for Francovich damages and the breach of EU law founded upon was 'sufficiently serious' to give rise to state liability. 

Criminal procedure – Disclosure – Prosecutor's duty to disclose information. Sheriff Court: In applications to the court for a ruling on disclosure by three accused who had pled not guilty to a summary complaint containing 16 charges mostly alleging contraventions of road traffic and regulatory legislation relevant to dealing in motor vehicles, the court concluded that a substantial amount of information sought by the defence was within the scope of the prosecutor's duty to disclose information. 

Company – Insolvency. The Chancery Division dismissed an application seeking declarations that the appointment of the first three respondents as joint administrators of a company had been a nullity because of an alleged prior floating charge in favour of another company. The court allowed a cross-application by the respondents, the joint administrators and Nationwide Building society, to strike out the substantive application having found that Nationwide's predecessor (Derbyshire), had had a qualifying floating charge for the purposes of s 251 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which Nationwide had acquired and that the company had never acquired the hotel in question and its adjoining land otherwise than subject to the terms of Derbyshire's legal charge and debenture. Accordingly, nothing had had the effect of depriving the Derbyshire debenture of its status of a floating charge as created and Nationwide had not been not precluded from making the appointment of the joint administrators. 

European Union – Directives. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 11(1), read in conjunction with arts 5, 7 and 13, of Directive (EC) 2005/60, as amended by Directive 2010/78/EU. The request had been made in proceedings between Safe Interenvíos SA (Safe), a payment institution, and three credit institutions, concerning the closure by those credit institutions of the accounts held by Safe because they had suspected money laundering. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection considered four test cases in which it was thought that there was no family member or friend who could be appointed as a representative under r 3A of the Court of Protection Rules 2007, SI 2007/1744. The court held that, among other things, the primary responsibility to provide a resource that enabled it either to make such appointments or to otherwise meet the minimum procedural requirements in cases in the classes represented by the test cases fell on the Secretary of State, or on the Secretary of State together with the applicant authorities. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Queen's Bench Division ruled on liability for costs, pursuant to CPR 36.13(5), following the claimant's acceptance in February 2016 of the defendant NHS trust's CPR Pt 36 offer, which offer had, in fact, expired in June 2015, it having been made earlier that month.