Latest Cases

Personal injury – Exposure to asbestos – Liability. Court of Session: Following a proof on liability in an action in which the pursuer alleged that he had contracted mesothelioma due to negligent exposure to asbestos in the course of his employment with defenders, the court concluded that the evidence was not sufficiently reliable to entitle it to find as a fact that the pursuer was exposed to dangerous quantities of asbestos dust during renovation works between 1976 and 1979, and his action could not, therefore, succeed. 

Criminal law – Conspiracy. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to convert criminal property, contrary to s 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and s 327(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, had not been unsafe. The judge's ruling that there had been a case to answer was correct. Both elements of the offences had been potentially present and there had been evidence upon which the defendants could have been convicted. However, the judge had fallen into a degree of error when having sentenced three of the defendants for their offending. 

Income tax – Partnership. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) which had allowed the taxpayer's claim for deduction of a payment made to a bank on the basis that it had been am expense incurred 'wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade' as required by s 34 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005. The tribunal held that it was in the context of the limited liability partnership (LLP) conducted collectively that the taxpayer had to justify the deduction of his payment and that the payment at issue had not been incurred 'wholly and exclusively' for the purposes of the LLP's trade. 

Contract – Condition. The Queen's Bench Division, in a case in which the claimant was claiming damages for fraud, conspiracy, breach of contract held that there was insufficient evidence to support a case of deliberate fraud, conspiracy or deceit. However there had been a breach of contract for which damages were payable in the amount of any overcharging in the invoices. 

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. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The request had been made in proceedings between several travel agencies and the Competition Council of Lithuania concerning a decision by which the latter had ordered those travel agencies to pay fines for having entered into and participated in anti-competitive practices. 

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. 

Immigration – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal against the respondent foreign criminal's successful appeal against deportation. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had erred in its approach and its failure properly to have applied the Immigration Rules had led to it taking an insufficiently vigorous approach to the issues raised under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That had been a material error of law. 

Will – Validity. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal in probate proceedings, held that, in the circumstances, the judge had been entitled to pronounce in favour of the deceased's will made in 2005. Among other things, it held that the judge had adequately identified the salient criteria for determination of testamentary capacity and the evidence had entitled him to have made the findings that he had. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union allowed the appeal in part by the applicant companies operating in the sale and marketing of bitumen against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013 in Galp Energía España and Others v Commission: T‑462/07, by which that Court, first, partially annulled Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under art 81 EC and reduced the amount of the fine imposed on them and, secondly, dismissed the action as to the remainder (the judgment under appeal). The judgment under appeal would be set aside in so far as it had fixed the new amount of the fines imposed on the applicants on the basis of an incorrect finding of the General Court.