Latest Cases

Personal Injury – Contaminated land – Negligence – Breach of statutory duty. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuers averred that they had lived at addresses at a housing development which, before the site was developed, was contaminated with harmful chemicals, that they inhaled vapours given off by the chemicals, became ill and had suffered loss, the court held that the pursuers' common law case against the first defenders, the developers, was irrelevant; the pursuers had pled a relevant common law case against the second defenders (who they said acted throughout as environmental consultants), and were entitled to a proof of their averments; their case against the third defenders, their housing association landlords, fell to be dismissed; neither the first nor the second defenders were in breach of s 33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and on the face of it the pursuers' right of action had expired but the case would be put out by order to give the pursuers' advisers the opportunity to consider the sufficiency of their pleadings as regards limitation. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division continued a freezing injunction in the Lord Chancellor's favour against the respondent former managing director of a solicitors' firm. There seemed to be a real risk that any judgment would go unsatisfied because of the respondent's disposal of his assets, unless he was restrained from disposing of them. 

Building contract – Terms. The Technology and Construction Court determined preliminary issues which arose in the court of a claim brought by the claimant company in respect of building work carried out at a warehouse in Kent. The issues included, among other things, whether a clause concerning limitation and notice of complaint, had been incorporated into a sub-contract between the first defendant contractor and second defendant sub-contractor and, if so incorporated, whether it was subject to the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. 

Sentence – Life imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Secretary of State's appeal, held that the evidence had not established that the claimant prisoner had been denied a real opportunity to demonstrate a sufficient reduction of risk by the end of the tariff period. It dismissed the claimant's cross-appeal, by which he sought to advance a claim under art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Insolvency – Liquidation – Gratuitous alienation. Court of Session: In an action in which the liquidator of a company sought declarator that a payment of £200,000 the company made to the Self-Invested Personal Pension (SIPP) of one of its directors was a gratuitous alienation, and repayment of that sum, following a preliminary proof on the question whether the £200,000 was repaid to the company as the director averred the court held that it was for him to establish that he had repaid the full amount which was paid into the SIPP account, to do that he would have to demonstrate that the transfer he made had a material or patrimonial value equal to £200,000, and he had failed to do so. 

Heritable property – Title to share of house – Purported revocation of survivorship destination. Court of Session: In a dispute about the ownership of a house which was disponed to the pursuer and his late wife 'equally between them and to the survivor of them', the wife having then executed a codicil purporting to revoke the survivorship destination in favour of the pursuer and her executors having sought confirmation on an estate which included her one‑half joint pro indiviso share of the house and granted title to that share to first defender, the court held that the first defender had stated no relevant defence to the proposition that the terms of the codicil did not operate to revoke the special destination, his case under s 1 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 was bound to fail, and he had failed to plead a relevant case of acquiescence. 

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary proceedings. The Administrative Court held that a doctor had a duty, under para 58 of the General Medical Council's (the GMC) Good Practice Guide (2006), to immediately notify the GMC of an adverse finding by a foreign regulatory body, notwithstanding that that decision was suspended pending appeal. Under r 4(5) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, the five years after which an allegation would not proceed absent exceptional circumstances, ran from the date that the professional body actually made its findings and only the GMC registrar had the power to make a r 4(5) determination. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division allowed an appeal to amend the particulars of a case of medical negligence in the case of a 6-year old boy with complex mental and physical disabilities following a home birth. It held that the amendment ought to be allowed even at the risk of the trial date being lost. The consolidation of all claims to be heard at one trial was so much more practical and economic in terms of time, trouble and cost to the parties. 

Terrorism – Prevention of. The Administrative Court determined that the claimant's appeal against the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to vary measures set out in his Terrorism Prevention Investigation Measures notice should be held at the same time as the statutory review of that notice. It further set out the procedure to be followed, given the Secretary of State's refusal to disclose in open proceedings all the material sought by the claimant. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The Administrative Court held that the claimant heterosexual couple's ineligibility to register as civil partners, under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, was not incompatible with their rights under arts 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The state had fulfilled its obligations under the Convention by having made a means of formal recognition of their relationship available and the denial of a further means of formal recognition which was open to same-sex couples did not amount to unlawful state interference with the claimants' rights to family life or private life.