Latest Cases

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. 

Judicial review – Pilot's authorisation – Disciplinary/revocation procedure. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition by a River Forth pilot who was placed on a 12-month performance review following four marine incidents in 2012, and then given notice of intention to revoke his pilot's authorisation by the harbour authority following a fifth incident, the court preferred the respondents' construction of the Pilotage Code of Practice, held that on that construction the code had not been complied with, but concluded that such failures as there had been did not invalidate the decisions and procedure to date. 

Mental health – Human rights. Court of Session: Allowing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings by a patient who was detained indefinitely in the State Hospital, challenging a decision to implement a comprehensive ban on smoking there, the court held that the Lord Ordinary had erred in holding that the respondents did not have the power to implement the prohibition on smoking under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, and in holding that art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged, or, if it was, that there had been disproportionate interference with the petitioner's rights. 

Police – Complaint against police. In the course of litigation following 'Plebgate', the claimant police officers sought judicial review of the Independent Police Complaints Commission's decision to re-determine the mode of investigation of them. The Divisional Court found that, as a result of procedural irregularities, the report of the original investigation had been invalid and of no effect. The argument that the power to re-determine the mode of investigation had not been available could not succeed, but there had been apparent bias or predetermination in that decision. 

Practice – Striking out. The claimant solicitor and the second defendant retired solicitor had acted for the first defendant in a boundary dispute. The differences arising from that litigation resulted in further proceedings between the parties. The Queen's Bench Division dealt with their application notices. It held that there was no basis to strike out the claimant's application against the defendants under the Protection from Harassment Act 1977. However, the court struck out the witness statements of the defendants and the second defendant's wife as irrelevant, an abuse of the court's process and likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings. 

European Union – Public procurement. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by Euro-Link Consultants Srl and another company in the same consortium (the applicants) for the annulment of the decision not to award the contract for 'Crimean tourism diversification and support project' to the applicants' consortium and the subsequent decisions rejecting the applicants' complaints. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant was convicted of assault in Poland, for which he received a suspended sentence, and he committed a further offence during his probationary period. He then came to the UK, where he worked to financially support his fiancée's family in Poland. A European arrest warrant was issued and the district judge made an order for his extradition to Poland. The appellant appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with his rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Value added tax – Supply of goods or services. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) that supplies of polycarbonate roof panels and radiation strips for conservatory roofs qualified for the reduced rate of VAT. The tribunal decided that the FTT had erred in its interpretation of Note 1(a) of Group 2 of Sch 7A to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. That error had been to construe 'insulation for roofs' as extending to the roof itself when it had energy-saving properties, rather than being confined to insulating materials attached or applied to a roof. 

Contract – Memorandum or note. The parties contracted under a memorandum of understanding to work together in oil production in Iraq. A dispute arose and the claimant commenced proceedings. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, the claimant was entitled to recover debts accrued in a debt claim, but that sums stated to be recoverable in the event of breach in a memorandum of understanding were a penalty and unenforceable. 

Unfair Dismissal – Right not to be unfairly dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employee's appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal that the employer's letter terminating the employee's employment on the basis that he had reached retirement age had complied with the relevant provisions of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/2408. The EAT decided that the letter had not complied with those provisions and that the form for request of extension of employment beyond retirement age which had accompanied that letter had also failed to comply with those provisions.