Latest Cases

Solicitor – Negligence. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant company's negligence case against the defendant solicitors. The court held that the defendant had adequately warned the claimant about a restriction on a property in which the claimant had sought to obtain an interest. In any event, the claimant had not established that it would have acted differently if different advice had been given. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Hikari Miso Ltd (Hikari) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Nishimoto Trading Co. Ltd and Hikari concerning the application by the latter company for registration of the word mark 'Hikari' as a Community trade mark. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimants' appeals, held, among other things, that Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 did not apply to the present proceedings, which had been issued in England against companies domiciled in the United Kingdom arising from accidents that had taken place in Scotland. The proceedings were 'purely' domestic. 

Civil procedure – Breach of interdict – Appeal. Court of Session: Allowing an appeal in which the issue was the proper mode of review of a finding of breach of interdict, the sheriff having found the appellant to be in breach of interim interdict and the sheriff principal having dismissed an appeal to him as incompetent, the court, agreeing with the observations in Maciver v Maciver and overruling Forbes v Forbes, held that the appeal was competent: both before and after the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907 there was ample authority for the proposition that a finding of contempt or a breach of interdict by a party to the cause was appealable in the normal way. 

Town and country planning – Refusal of planning permission – Local development plan. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by developers against a reporter's decision dismissing their appeal against the refusal of planning permission for a residential development, the court rejected contentions that the reporter had misinterpreted and misapplied policies in the development plan and that she had failed to give proper, adequate and intelligible reasons for her decision. 

Inhibition – Restriction of inhibition – Breach of contractual or other duty. Court of Session: Granting decree of absolvitor in an action in which the pursuer sought payment of £2m by the defenders in respect of damages for losses he allegedly sustained as a consequence of the first defender's failure to secure the partial discharge of an inhibition, the court found that neither defender undertook any contractual obligation or made any representation to the pursuer in relation to the restriction of an inhibition over his property during a telephone conversation on 21 November 2008 between the first defender and the pursuer's intermediary, and the reason for Woolwich Building Society's decision in January 2009 to withdraw their offer to lend to the pursuer was not because of the existence of the inhibition: consequently the pursuer's case against both defenders must fail. 

Animal – Protection. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review, challenging the sanctions for infringements of licence conditions for animal experimentation. The decisions had not been ultra vires or irrational and they had been based on sufficient information. 

Civil procedure – Decree by default – Reduction of decree. Court of Session: Granting decree of absolvitor in an action in which the pursuers sought reduction of a decree by default granted by the sheriff at Glasgow at the instance of the defenders, the court was satisfied that the pursuers required to aver and prove that there were exceptional circumstances in the case and, in addition, that substantial justice required that they be granted the remedy they sought, however it was not satisfied that the circumstances could properly be described as exceptional and the action was therefore incompetent and irrelevant. 

Child – Foster child. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Nationwide Association of Fostering Providers' judicial review proceedings, contending that the defendant local authorities had failed to comply with the duty set out in s 22C(5) of the Children Act 1989. On the proper interpretation of s 22C(5) of the Act, the challenge to the lawfulness of the authorities' polices was misconceived. 

Practice – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing an appeal against the refusal of an extension of time for seeking permission to apply for judicial review in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), held that delay in obtaining legal aid was not a complete answer to a failure to comply with procedural requirements. It might still be a factor that could be taken into account, but no more.