Latest Cases

Landlord and tenant – Verbal lease – Action of delivery – Personal bar. Sheriff Court: In an action concerning a verbal lease of a garage forecourt shop that was converted into a chip shop, in which the pursuer sought delivery of moveable equipment that was installed in the chip shop, failing which payment of the value of the equipment, and payment of damages in respect of profits lost due to an alleged material breach of the verbal lease, the court held that the defender's defence to the action of delivery could not succeed but the pursuer could not rely on the personal bar provisions in the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 in order to recover damages for the loss of future profits on the basis of material breach of the verbal lease. 

Executor and administrator – Administrator. The Chancery Division dismissed an application by the claimants, who were the former administrators of a holiday park, for an order that the unpaid balance of their remuneration should be charged on and payable out as a sum of £62,646.06. The court held that the payment in issue was not an asset, and could not be subject to the charge as sought. 

Immigration – Refugee. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Iranian nationals' challenge to the defendant Secretary of State's certification of their asylum claims on safe third country grounds and certification of their human rights claims as clearly unfounded. Although articles other than art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and art 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union could be prayed in aid to prevent returns under Council Regulation (EC) 343/03 (Dublin II), there was no flagrant breach of art 5 of the Convention in Cyprus for Dublin returnees who had had a final decision on their claim. 

Insurance – Broker. The Commercial Court allowed the defendant's CPR Pt 20 claim against the third parties, following the defendant's settlement of the claimants' claim for its breach of contractual and/or tortious duties. It held that both the defendant and third parties had been at fault. Accordingly, liability would be apportioned at 30% for the third parties and 70% for the defendant. 

Family proceedings – Fact finding hearing. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed, in part, an appeal against orders allowing for publicity and media attendance at the re-opening of a fact finding hearing in care proceedings. In circumstances where the re-hearing was in respect of fresh medical evidence, the court ordered that any reference to medical evidence be redacted from the earlier fact finding judgment. Further, tighter requirements were put in place regarding the control of reporting by the media. 

Bond – Issue of. The Commercial Court, ruling on a preliminary issue concerning the validity of a mandatory conversion notice by the defendant, issued in respect of US$70m 2.5% convertible bonds, held that the notice had been valid. 

Minor – Medical treatment. The Family Division made an order by consent granting a declaration that the applicant health board's treatment plan in respect of a baby, Y, incorporating the withholding and withdrawal of treatment in certain respects, was lawful as being in Y's best interests. 

Criminal law – Proceeds of crime. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, quashed the appointment of an enforcement receiver over their realisable assets of the appellant company and individual defendants, and allowed the defendants' appeals against confiscation orders, following their guilty plea to conspiring to making false instruments in their road haulage company. The orders had involved the unjustified application of the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court, in a fact finding hearing where two families were involved made findings of fact in relation to a non-accidental injury of a child L, in order to determine the future of three infants who were each the subject of care proceedings brought by the local authority. The principal facts which the court was being asked to find concerned the brain injuries sustained by L. 

Immigration – Leave to remain – Appeal. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by five Pakistani citizens, a principal applicant, who sought leave to remain in the UK as a tier 1 (entrepreneur) migrant, and her husband and three children, whose application was refused on the basis that she had not complied with the requirement to show access to at least £200,000 for the purpose of investing in a business in UK, and whose appeals were refused by the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal, the court held that the necessary letter from the bank confirming that the funds in her husband's account were available to the first appellant was missing, there was nothing to suggest that the husband had placed the funds under his wife's control, and in those circumstances common sense, humanity, or 'a modicum of intelligence' did not require a different approach from that taken by the Secretary of State.