Latest Cases

Riot – Damages – Compensation. Court of Session: Refusing reclaiming motions in two actions by the owners and operators of a secure residential facility who sought to recover their losses from the local authority resulting from an incident at the school which they described as a riot, the court held that the pursuers had not failed to relevantly aver a case of entitlement to compensation under s 10 of the Riotous Assemblies (Scotland) Act 1822, as the phrase 'unlawful, riotous or tumultuous assembly', as used in s 10 could apply to the events at the school and the pursuers could qualify as 'parties injured' in terms of s 10. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement of planning control. The defendants were trustees of a charitable religious trust. They had entered into undertakings pursuant to s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of a site that they owned in east London. When the defendants breached those undertakings, the local planning authority applied to the court for a mandatory final injunction. The injunction was granted and the defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been correct to grant the injunction where there had been a substantial breach of the undertakings and in circumstances where the enforcement of contractual planning obligations and planning appeals (which the defendants had lodged) were separate processes. However, the judge had erred in not considering whether to suspend the operation of the injunction. 

Copyright – Ownership. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of a contract, the claimants did not own the copyrights in songs written by famous reggae musician, Bob Marley. The claim was dismissed. 

Trade union – Recognition. The claimant (Boots) sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) that the application of the Pharmacists' Defence Association Union (the PDAU) to be recognised by the Boots for the purposes of collective bargaining on behalf of the pharmacists employed by Boots was admissible. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that, on the proper interpretation of 'collective bargaining' in para 134(1) of Sch A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the PDAU's application to the CAC had been rendered inadmissible by para 35 of Sch A1 to the Act. 

Insolvency – Bankruptcy. The first defendant appealed against the entry of judgment against him on the basis that the claimant had failed to disclose his bankruptcy, which had occurred after the start of proceedings, but before judgment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the first defendant's appeal had been founded on the false premises that the bankruptcy order had immediately deprived the claimant of his cause of action. The first defendant had failed to show that the claimant's property had passed to a trustee in bankruptcy before judgment, and that the claimant had known that the official receiver had become trustee, that his estate had become vested in the official receiver and that that had been so before judgment had been entered. 

Agriculture – Agricultural land. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that the definition of 'permanent pasture' set out in art 2(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) 1120/2009 had to be interpreted as covering agricultural land which was currently, and had been for five years or more, used to grow grass and other herbaceous forage, even though that land had been ploughed up and seeded with another variety of herbaceous forage other than that which had previously been grown on it during that period. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The patient suffered a stroke which left him incapacitated and unable to manage his own affairs. There were two applicants to the court of protection who sought to manage his affairs. The Court of Protection chose the candidate proposed by a support network of friends and neighbours, who represented the status quo in terms of being the persons in whom the patient had placed trust and confidence immediately before he became incapacitated. 

Passing off – Descriptive name. The claimant made and sold hair oil under the name 'Moroccanoil' and the defendant sold hair oil, 'Miracle Oil'. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for passing off. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the evidence did not lead to the conclusion that members of the public were likely to assume either that Miracle Oil and Moroccanoil were the same thing, that they came from the same manufacture or were otherwise linked in trade. Accordingly, the claimant had failed to establish passing off because the evidence had not supported any likelihood of a misrepresentation by the defendant. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The defendants were sentenced for offences which included threatening and injuring numerous people for the purpose of enforcing debts of a known drug-dealer. The first defendant was sentenced to a total sentence of 17 years' imprisonment for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and for firearm offences. The second defendant was sentenced to a total of three years and eight months' imprisonment for two counts of affray. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowing the appeal of the first defendant, held that the total sentence was manifestly excessive and that a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment overall was appropriate. On the facts, there was nothing excessive or wrong in principle in the sentence imposed on the second defendant and his appeal was dismissed. 

National Health Service – Health authority. The claimant issued proceedings for judicial review, seeking a ruling that the defendant clinical commissioning group (the CCG) had an obligation, under s 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006, to provide her with accommodation as part of the health care package with which it should provider her free of charge under the NHS. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, given pending Court of Protection proceedings to determine the claimant's capacity, it was too early to say that the CCG was bound in law to find that the claimant had a reasonable requirement of accommodation which needed to be met out of NHS resources.