Latest Cases

Police – Discipline. The claimant police officers issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the refusal of their appeals against the continued imposition of the service confidence procedure (SCP) against them. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the decisions had sufficient public law element. However, the circumstances which led to a decision to invoke the SCP required that the court not intervene in the absence of very exceptional circumstances and that threshold had not been met. There was no patent and unanswerable illogicality/irrationality/unfairness in the defendant's decisions. 

Reparation – Negligence – Duty of care. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuers sought damages in respect of loss caused by fire in a farmhouse and outbuildings they owned, averring that the fire damage was caused as a result of fault and negligence of the defenders, firefighters having concluded that they had extinguished a fire at the farm but the fire having re-ignited after their departure, the court concluded that the pursuers had pled a relevant case which entitled them to proof before answer. 

Medical treatment – Withdrawal of treatment. The applicant NHS Foundation Trust sought authority to provide, in the exercise of its clinical discretion, life-sustaining treatment to the first respondent 52 year old man, TH, in a minimally conscious state. The Court of Protection held that the correct course was to adjourn the issue concerning the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration to provide for a structured clinical assessment. It considered TH's views and found that the weight to be given to those views and how they were to be balanced should await the conclusion of that assessment. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Admissibility of evidence – Prejudicial publicity. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals by two appellants who were convicted after trial of carrying out a fraudulent scheme, the court held that a sheriff had not erred in repelling an objection to the Crown leading evidence of parts of a co-accused's police interview, nor had he erred in refusing a motion to desert the trial following publication by the Scottish Government of a news release concerning human trafficking during the trial. 

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. 

Employment – Remuneration. The employer had refused to pay the employees a day's wages in circumstances where they had attended an agreed pick-up point, but had refused to be driven to work on a road which was closed due to snow. The employment tribunal rejected the employees' claims that they had suffered a detriment in breach of their rights under s 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which was concerned with matters of health and safety, and that they had suffered and unlawful deduction from wages. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employees' appeal in part, found that the tribunal had not provided sufficient reasons for its decision. It rejected a further argument that the employees were entitled to be paid from 8am on the day in question on the basis that they had attended the pick-up point in accordance with instructions. The matter was remitted for a re-hearing. 

Company – Director. The claimant company claimed for loss suffered when two client companies defaulted on their obligations to pay margin calls under open-ended contracts for difference (CfD) entered into between the claimant and those two companies. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the judge's determination that the defendant had not been a director or shadow director of the claimant, nor had his conduct constituted a breach of s 190 of the Companies Act 2006. 

Social security – Housing benefit. The claimants challenged reg B13(5) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, SI 2006/213 on the basis that it was manifestly without reasonable foundation not to make provision for an extra bedroom where a disabled child in a housing benefit claimant's family was a person who required overnight care from a non-resident carer. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the means employed by the housing benefit scheme to achieve the government's policy objective had not been inappropriate or disproportionate in its adverse effects. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employer dismissed the employee for misconduct, namely dishonesty. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's claim for unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal's conclusions had not been perverse. 

Injunction – Freezing order. The claimants (Anglo Financial SA and Fortis), brought proceedings against the defendant solicitor in respect of alleged breaches of loan agreements. A freezing order was made against G without notice. The claimants applied to continue the freezing order. The Chancery Division dismissed the application, ruling that there was no basis to find a real risk of dissipation of assets by G in the absence of a freezing order.