Latest Cases

Children's hearing – Right to challenge decision of children's hearing. Court of Session: In appeal against a sheriff's refusal of an appeal to her against a decision of a children's hearing as incompetent, the court held that the sheriff was fully entitled on the facts found by her to hold that the appellant was not a 'relevant person' within the meaning of s 93(2)(b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, and thus did not have the right to challenge the decision of a children's hearing through an appeal to the sheriff and, ultimately, to the Court of Session. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The proceedings concerned an appeal by the grandparents of four children against a full care order made in respect of each of the children and the decision to authorise the local authority to place all four of them for adoption. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that none of the grounds of the appeal had sufficient substance to cause concern as to the essential validity of the process undertaken by the judge and the substance of his judgment. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The proceedings concerned the care of a young man, M, who was autistic. His parents, especially his mother, E, contended that care for M had been ineffective and that his condition had been the result of the use of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination. The local authority sought orders stating that E had invented symptoms and failed to assist with M's care. The Court of Protection granted the orders and refused E's application to be reinstated as M's deputy. 

Education – Higher education. The claimant, who had discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom, was ineligible for a student loan as a result of her immigration status. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant Secretary of State's appeal, found that the defendant Secretary of State had adopted a lawful bright line rule in formulating the 'basic category' of eligible students given in para 2 of pt 2 of Sch 1 to the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011. 

Arbitration – Appeal. The claimant, PEC, was a company owned by the President of India.The defendant company, AGR, was a Thailand-based rice trader. PEC appealed under s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 against a finding by the GAFTA First-tier Tribunal that a purchase agreement had been concluded between the parties, through two individuals, R and J, on behalf of PEC, for the purchase of rice by PEC and that PEC were liable to pay AGR $6.25m. The Commercial Court, allowing the appeal, held that R and J had not had actual or apparent authority to conclude the purchase agreement, and that PEC had not made any arbitration agreement relating thereto. 

Practice – Claim. In the course of proceedings concerning a public procurement claim, the Technology an Construction Court determined preliminary issues and gave consideration to the requirements in respect of what for the contents of a claim form under CPR 16.2. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to France to face drug transportation charges. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the European arrest warrant had contained proper particulars and the consequences of the interference with the appellant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were not so exceptionally severe as to outweigh the public interest in extradition. Further, the judge had been entitled to conclude that it had been in the interests of justice that the appellant's extradition should take place. 

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. 

Unfair dismissal – Constructive dismissal. The employment tribunal allowed the employee's claim for constructive unfair dismissal on the basis that the employer's conduct of a disciplinary hearing which had resulted in the employee's dismissal had amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) upheld the employer's appeal against that decision on the grounds, amongst other things, that: (i) the tribunal had not considered whether the employee had resigned in response to that breach of contract; and (ii) the tribunal had wrongly concluded that the employee had affirmed the contract of employment. Accordingly, the matter was remitted for re-hearing before a fresh tribunal. 

Costs – Security for costs. The claimants obtained permission to appeal a judgment where the defendant's construction of a agreement was favoured by the judge. The defendant applied for security for the costs of the appeal on the basis, inter alia, that there was reason to believe that they would be unable to pay the defendant's costs of an appeal if ordered to do so. The Court of Appeal allowed the application and made an order for security for costs in the sum of £50,000.