Latest Cases

Compulsory purchase and compensation. Court of Session: In an appeal against a decision of the Scottish Ministers, cancelling a certificate of appropriate alternative development ('a CAAD') issued by Fife Council relating to land owned by the appellants ('the CAAD Land') which was required by the Scottish Ministers for the works authorised by the Forth Crossing Act 2011, the Ministers having permanently acquired part of the CAAD Land and temporarily entered and possessed another part, the Ministers conceded that the decision was not within the powers of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 in so far as relating to the permanently acquired land and the court held that it was within the powers of 1963 Act in so far as relating to the temporarily acquired land. 

Misrepresentation – Damages. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant company's claim in deceit in part. It held that a former employee of the defendant, D, had made a number of deceitfully high rental valuations for properties in a development. A number of communications between the parties had, generally, not created a break in the chain of causation. The claims were made out in the case of three out of the four groups in the proceedings. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Chancery Division adjourned a hearing to convene a single class of creditors to consider a scheme of arrangement in respect of the applicant company, Indah Kiat International Finance Company B.V. Among other things, it considered that 14 days was inadequate notice for a convening hearing for a scheme of the present type, which was neither simple nor straightforward. Even if the notice to the creditors had been adequate, an order convening a single meeting of scheme creditors would not have been made because the evidence adduced by the company as to the appropriate composition of the scheme meetings and draft explanatory statement were materially deficient in their current form. 

Judgment – Default of defence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against a refusal to set aside default judgment. One of the conditions in CPR 12.3(1) had not been met, as no time for responding to service of the claim form had been given, and, therefore, the relevant time for doing so had not expired. Further, it could not be said that the defendant did not have an arguable defence. 

Local government – Licensing – Street traders. Sheriff Court: Reversing a licensing authority's decision to vary street trader licences it had granted to the pursuers which allowed them, within set hours, to sell hot and cold food from snack vans on designated sites, to include a condition prohibiting them from operating within 250 metres of secondary schools from 8am to 5pm on school days, which the pursuers all did, the court held that the condition was ultra vires as the defender did not have the power to impose that particular condition on the licences of street traders. 

Criminal law – Rape. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of three years' imprisonment for an offence of rape, contrary to s 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, had been unduly lenient. The judge had not identified sufficient mitigation to depart from the sentencing range, as prescribed by the Sentencing Council's Definitive Guidelines: Sexual Offences. The sentence would be quashed and substituted for a term of five years and six months' imprisonment. 

Insolvency – Receivership – Ranking preference as between floating charge holder and inhibiting creditor. Court of Session: In a case in which the court revisited the issue of ranking preference as between a floating charge holder and an inhibiting creditor, and considered afresh the meaning of the phrase 'effectually executed diligence' it held that the pursuer's first plea in law must be repelled regardless of whether an inhibition registered in the pursuer's favour fell properly to be categorised as an effectually executed diligence on the two houses owned by the defender, but that the pursuer's alternative argument succeeded—ie that even if the inhibition was not an effectually executed diligence, it nevertheless ranked ahead of a bank's floating charge with regard to debt incurred after the inhibition. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Commercial Court dismissed an application by Muktar Ablyazov's son-in-law (I) to set aside a claim form and worldwide freezing order which had been issued against him where the claimant Russian bank had established a good arguable case that I had committed the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means and where, notwithstanding that he was domiciled in Switzerland, the English court had jurisdiction under art 5(3) of the Lugano Convention on the basis that the alleged conspiracy had been hatched in England in the period before 16 February 2012. 

Housing – Homeless person. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' judicial review proceedings, claiming that the manner in which the defendant local housing authority had dealt with their applications for housing as a homeless person had been unlawful and had reflected systemic failings. The individual claims failed because there had been no breach of statutory duty or any breach was minor and did not warrant relief. Further, the possible breach of duty had not arguably supported a claim of systemic failure as was alleged in the general claim. 

Company – Administration-Director. The Chancery Division ruled on the joint liquidators' application for a declaration of wrongful trading that, although the directors of a company in administration ought to have concluded by a certain date that there was no reasonable prospect of the company avoiding insolvent liquidation, continued trading had not caused loss to the company overall or worsen the position of the creditors as a whole. Accordingly, no declaration was made under s 214(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986, requiring the directors to make any contribution to the assets of the company in respect of any losses said to have been caused to the company during the period of wrongful trading.