Latest Cases

Local government – Valuation for rating. Court of Session: Allowing appeals by an assessor against a Valuation Appeal Committee's decision concerning the valuation of six 'Run-of-the-River' hydroelectric schemes, the court held that the committee, in rejecting the assessor's argument that a sequential approach should be taken, erred in law in its interpretation of the Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (Scotland) Regulations 2000, and it quashed the valuations and remitted to the committee for reconsideration. 

Conflict of interest – Jurisdiction. The Chancery Division held that it had no jurisdiction in respect of claims for declarations of entitlement to shares in companies registered in the name of the deceased, which had been 

Town and country planning – District plan. The Administrative Court allowed the claimants' application, under s 133(3) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, for an order that a policy of the local plan adopted by the first defendant local planning authority be treated as not adopted and remitted to the second defendant Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's inspector had failed to give reasons for acting as he had or had been irrational in making a recommendation without reasons. 

Arbitration – Award. The Commercial Court allowed the claimant's appeal concerning an arbitration which arose out of a contract of affreightment (COA) made between the claimant, as owners and the defendant, as charterers of bulk carriers. The tribunal had erred in law by failing to hold that by being deprived, by the defendant's breach, of its right to receive freight, the claimant had suffered a loss, notwithstanding that the claimant had used two other companies to receive all inward freight earned under the COA and to pay all outgoing freight. The tribunal had not taken into account that, whilst one limb of the right to receive freight had been the right to receive it into one's bank account, another limb of that right had been the right to give it away. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court held that, in the circumstances, the only substantive declaration that was appropriate was one that said that, unless and until it was challenged in litigation, the parties were bound by the decision in the first adjudication to the effect that the contract between them had been governed by a letter of intent, and not the JCT Intermediate Building Contract with contractor's design terms 2011. The adjudicator had been entitled to reach the conclusion that he had, and he had had the necessary jurisdiction to decide that there had been a valid contract which had incorporated the letter of intent. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's clinical negligence case against the defendant doctors on the basis that there was a credible explanation for why no sufficient warning bells had rung for any doctor who had seen the claimant in order to diagnose signs of a subarachnoid haemorrhage, from which she had later suffered. 

Adoption – Arrangements. The Family Court made care and placement orders in respect of two children despite their parents being in Slovakia and not giving consent. In so deciding, the court took into account the likely effect on the children (throughout their lives) of ceasing to be members of their birth family and found that any disadvantages were outweighed by the emotional security they would acquire as adopted persons. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to the Slovak Republic to face charges for fraud and forgery. In the circumstances of the case, the passage of 16 years and the events which had occurred within that period meant that it would be unjust to direct the appellant's extradition. 

Police – Disclosure of information. The Administrative Court granted the claimant declaratory relief on the basis that he had no means of seeking to persuade a public authority that disclosure of two reprimands for offences of sexual activity with a child, issued when he had been aged 13, had not been relevant or necessary. Accordingly, there were insufficient safeguards and the interference with the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been in accordance with the law. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division held that in considering allowing the claimants' application for pre-action disclosure under CPR 31.16/s 33 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 in relation to a causes of action in defamation and harassment that the claimants had made out a clear and strong case for the exercise of the court's discretion to order pre-action disclosure in their favour.