Latest Cases

Patent – Practice. The Patents Court struck out the applicant company's application to amend one of the claims of a patent following a trial at which it had been unsuccessful. The court held that the application to amend was an abuse of process, because it could and should have been made prior to trial. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, once one had arrived at the conclusion that a previous decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) was admissible evidence of what it had decided, then, in the absence of guidelines laid down by the Upper Tribunal itself, it was a question of what weight a subsequent tribunal should give it. No doubt the extent to which the previous decision was a decision on general points of interest, rather than specific facts and the cogency of the reasoning would impact on the weight to be given to a particular decision, but that was a matter for the subsequent tribunal. 

Contempt of court – Witness – Failure to attend trial diet. High Court of Justiciary: Passing a bill of suspension brought by a complainer who was the victim of an assault and was cited as a witness to give evidence at the trial of his alleged assailant but who failed to attend the trial diet and was found to have been in contempt of court, the court concluded that in the particular circumstances of the case—namely that the night before the court diet the complainer's eight‑year‑old son had had an accident requiring surgery for a broken shoulder bone—the high test for contempt had not been met, and it quashed the finding of contempt. 

Criminal procedure – Bail conditions – Right to respect for private and family life. High Court of Justiciary: In the case of an accused who, after pleading not guilty to, inter alia, assaulting his girlfriend, was admitted to bail subject to special conditions that he should not enter the street where she lived or attempt to contact her, and who appealed against a sheriff's refusal of his application to vary the bail conditions and presented a compatibility minute averring that the complainer did not wish him to be subject to the special conditions and that his and her rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached, the court proceeded on the basis that the accused and complainer had art 8 rights which were sufficiently engaged but held that they had not been infringed; that the existing procedures in relation to bail applications of the kind under consideration were convention-compliant; and that while the complainer had no right to be represented in court or to address the court that did not mean that there was no mechanism for drawing her views to the court's attention. 

Sentencing – Supply of drugs. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal against sentence by an appellant who pled guilty to a charge of supplying heroin and was sentenced to 13½ years' imprisonment, discounted by 25% from 18 years for the early plea, the court held that any error the sentencing judge made in relation to the volume of dealing fell into the de minimis category when the overall amounts were realised, and the final sentence arrived at was a reasonable one in all the circumstances. 

Personal injury – Vicarious liability – Employer and employee. Sheriff Court: Refusing an appeal against a sheriff's decision by a pursuer who sustained injuries as a result of an accident in the course of his employment with the defenders when a hammer a manager had thrown at another employee struck him on the head, the court concluded that the sheriff had not erred in deciding that the defenders were not vicariously liable for the act of the manager, their employee, as it could not be said that his reckless act occurred in the course of his employment. 

Guarantee – Construction. The Commercial Court interpreted the effect of art 97.2 of the Spanish Act on Insolvency 22/2003 dated 9 July 2003. It held that the Spanish Act did not operate to extinguish a guarantee as a guarantee granted by a third party and that the claimants were entitled to judgment on the claim. 

Guarantee – Enforcement. The Chancery Division dismissed an appeal against a district judge's dismissal of the claimant's application to set aside a second statutory demand issued by a bank against him under a guarantee where it had been based on the same argument, promissory estoppel, used in respect of his application to set aside the first statutory demand issued by the bank. Where there was a second statutory demand, an argument that had been run unsuccessfully and abandoned on appeal could not be raised in respect of a second statutory demand unless there was a change of, or special circumstances. There were no special or exceptional circumstances in the present case to justify re-opening or re-arguing the promissory estoppel point, which had previously been rejected and the district judge had been entitled to come to the conclusion that he had. 

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy High Court granted the applicant discharged bankrupt permission to bring an action against the respondent, the released joint trustee in bankruptcy, under s 304 of the Insolvency Act 1986 for an order that he repay, restore or account for money or pay a sum by way of compensation in respect of misfeasance or breach of fiduciary duty in carrying out his functions as trustee. There was evidence to suggest that the applicant had a reasonably meritorious cause of action against the respondent on the basis of his having incurred and paid legal fees in excess of what he had had authority to incur. 

Insurance – Liability insurance. The Commercial Court allowed the defendant French insurance company's application, in which it disputed the jurisdiction of the English court to hear and determine proceedings brought the claimant insurance company. The court had no jurisdiction pursuant to either art 7(1) or (2) of Council Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 and the proceedings had to be dismissed.