Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant in a personal injury claim was refused permission by the district judge to amend his defence late in the proceedings in order to plead formally a case in contributory negligence. The defendant sought permission to appeal and an appeal if granted. The Queen's Bench Division in granting permission and allowing the appeal held that Justice and fairness required that the amendment should have been allowed so that 'the real dispute' between the parties could be adjudicated upon. 

Injunction – Interlocutory. The Queen's Bench Division granted an application by the claimants, Russell Brand and Jemima Goldsmith, to continue an anti-harassment injunction against the defendant masseuse where, on the facts, it was satisfied that the claimants were likely to succeed in establishing at trial that the defendant had committed the tort of harassment and where the balance of convenience favoured continuing injunctive relief until the full trial of the matter. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. S, aged 15, left her mother in Mexico for London with the practical and financial assistance of her father. The mother applied for a summary return of S to Mexico, but S objected on the basis that she was not receiving a reasonable education in Mexico. The Family Division, in allowing the application, held that there had been a wrongful removal or retention. While taking account of S's views, the relevant considerations pointed clearly to S returning to Mexico. 

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. The appellant registered nurse appealed against the decision of a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee of the respondent Nursing and Midwifery Council (the panel), finding that his fitness to practice was impaired by reason of misconduct and suspending his registration for 12 months. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the panel had failed to conduct a careful balancing exercise in admitting the witness statements of absent witnesses and had failed to consider their credibility or reliability. Further, the findings in respect of a third witness could not stand and the decision would be quashed with no direction for a rehearing. 

Sentence – Hospital order. The claimant, who had a long history of mental health problems, had received an indeterminate sentence for arson with intent to endanger property. Having served the minimum term, she sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's and Parole Board's decisions in reviewing her detention over 22 months. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, although it had taken a considerable time to be resolved, there had been no breach of the obligation on the part of the state to provide a 'speedy' resolution. 

Adoption – Application. The judge made care and placement orders concerning two children. The parents sought leave to oppose the making of adoption orders and the transfer of the proceedings to the Slovak Republic. Other organisations applied for the placement of the children in foster care in the Slovak Republic. The Family Court, in dismissing the applications, held that none of the matters relied upon by the parents had amounted to a change in circumstances. With respect to the transfer of proceedings to and placement of the children in the Slovak Republic, it was too late in the proceedings and the judge had already determined those issues. 

Criminal evidence – Admissibility/sufficiency of evidence. High Court of Justiciary: In appeals against conviction by three bus drivers who were found guilty of forming a fraudulent scheme to defraud Transport Scotland by scanning lost or stolen concessionary travel cards into electronic ticket machines, the court held that the sheriff was entitled to admit evidence of the appellants' interviews with employees of Transport Scotland, was correct in repelling their submissions of no case to answer and was entitled to convict them, but that the findings-in-fact were not sufficient to support convictions for the period 5 February 2010 to 23 November 2010, so the convictions should be restricted to the date '23 November 2010'. 

Road traffic – Careless driving. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, considered the case of a lorry driver who had been convicted of causing the death of an 89 year old man by careless driving. The man had been crossing the road at the time of the collision. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal against conviction and held, amongst other things, that although the judge's direction on the evidence had not been strictly correct, it could not be seen how the defendant's position could have in any way been improved. The court allowed the defendant's appeal against sentence in part and substituted a period of 18 months' disqualifcation from driving for one of 12 months. 

Bank – Documentary credit. The judge continued and made interlocutory an interim injunction restraining the second respondent bank from making a payment to the appellant under a letter of credit, as the fraud exception had been established. The Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court in Mauritius affirmed the decision and the appellant appealed. The Privy Council articulated the fraud exception test applicable to letters of credit at the interlocutory stage, but held that the fraud exception had not been satisfied. Further, the judge had erred in his approach to the balance of convenience, given the insuperable difficulty recognised by the authorities. 

Limitation of Action – Personal injury claim. The claimant had been a dock worker who had come into contact with asbestos. In 2002 he was diagnosed with lung cancer. In 2009 he instructed solicitors who sent letters before action and, in 2012, issued proceedings seeking damages for personal injury. His claim was dismissed as being outside the limitation period, with the judge refusing to exercise his discretion under s 33(3) of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the provisions of s 11. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the decision as having been correctly made and, in the light of established authorities, gave the true construction of s 33(3) of the Act.