Latest Cases

Solemn procedure – Child witnesses – Right to fair trial – Right to examine witnesses. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of sexual offences involving young children and who contended that his right to a fair trial, especially his subsidiary right to examine witnesses, had been breached because he did not have an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge the key witnesses against him, the court held that the appellant's trial could not be classified as unfair as he had had a full opportunity to cross-examine the children and he took that opportunity. 

Arbitration – Arbitration agreement. The Commercial Court ruled on a question referred to it in the course of two shipping arbitrations. It held that, in circumstances where a claim and a counterclaim arose from a single set of facts giving rise to a balance of accounts or netting-off under a contract, a reference to 'claims' and to 'all disputes arising under the contract' in notices of appointment of an arbitrator would ordinarily suffice to interrupt the running of time in respect of the counterclaim for the purposes of s14(4) Arbitration Act 1996. 

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. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection held that the parent of a 16 year old young person could not consent to their confinement which, absent a valid consent, would amount to a deprivation of that young person's liberty for the purposes of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that it was for the local authority to protect a young person's right in such circumstances by applications to court to determine whether that young person was deprived to his liberty, is so, to seek authorisation for its continuance. 

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. 

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. 

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 – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between Consorzio Artigiano Servizio Taxi e Autonoleggio and two transport operators and Local Health Authority of Ciriè, Chivasso et Ivrea and the Region of Piedmont concerning, first, the award, with no competitive tendering, of the service of transporting dialysis patients to various health care establishments, to Associazione Croce Bianca del Canavese and to several other voluntary associations and, secondly, the authorisation of the related expenditure. 

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. 

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.