Latest Cases

Building contract – Adjudication. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant building contractor's appeal against the dismissal of its claim for injunctive and declaratory relief to restrain the defendant employers from proceeding with an adjudication to determine the sum properly due to the claimant, following termination of the contract. The judge had not erred in his construction of para 9(2) of Pt 1 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts. The defendants were entitled to proceed to adjudication in order to determine the correct value of the claims and counterclaims. 

Bank – Account. The Chancery Division held that a banking arrangement to temporarily hold mortgage payments had not put the claimant mortgagor into arrears for those payments. Consequently, the defendant bank was wrong to have circulated adverse credit information relating to those payments. By deeming the unpaid instalments as arrears, the bank had also wrongly double-charged the claimant for interest payments. The bank had been successful in enforcing a claim for money which had been guaranteed by the claimant. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Family Proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a father's appeal against the recorder's dismissal of his application to enforce indirect contact with his children. The recorder could not be criticised for having rejected an application for 'enforcement' which, in the circumstances, had not been capable of effective enforcement. 

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. 

Warrant – Search warrant. The Divisional Court quashed some of the warrants issued against the claimants, but dismissed their judicial review proceedings concerning others. It held that a claimant was not necessarily entitled to a determination of the Administrative Court of a warrant's validity and the determination of such issues did not necessarily preclude the making of an order which led to an application under s 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.