Latest Cases

Injunction – Interim. The Chancery Division considered two applications by the mobile operator Lebara in the course of a dispute about the blocking of attempts by the customers of the defendant companies to use a mobile service provided by Lebara. The court held that, in the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to allow either application. 

Costs – Taxation. The Queen's Bench Division gave judgment in an appeal in relation to a cost decision of a master in regard to client billing under the Solicitors Act 1974. In so doing it interpreted an ambiguity in the retainer against the defendant solicitor. 

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a total sentence of 40 months' imprisonment for wounding with intent and aggravated vehicle taking had been unduly lenient. In particular, the substantial and on-going harm caused to the victim, as well as the offender's high culpability for his actions, had outweighed his personal mitigation. A total sentence of six years' imprisonment was imposed in substitution. 

Sentence – Compensation. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against the judge's decision to make confiscation and compensation orders. It specifically endorsed the judge's approach, in effect, holding that, if the sale of the family home was required, then that was the consequence, not of the compensation order, but of the confiscation order. 

Criminal law – Threatening or abusive behaviour – Availability of defence of self-defence – Burden of proof. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal against conviction, the court held that a sheriff did not misdirect the jury when he told them that the special defence of self-defence had no relevance to a charge of behaving in a threatening or abusive manner under s 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010; s 38(2) did not impose a legal burden on an accused as opposed to an evidential one and the sheriff did misdirect the jury on that matter; however, as the appellant's behaviour could not, on any view, be characterised as having been reasonable, notwithstanding the misdirection there had been no miscarriage of justice. 

Tort – Cause of action. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against, among other things, the finding that it was liable in misuse of private information and/or for breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The judge had been right to hold that the claimants, three children of a well-known musician, had had a reasonable expectation in the privacy of the photographs and that their rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had outweighed the defendant's right under art 10 of the Convention. 

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to drop options set out in its documents concerning developing an estate. The authority's decision had been unlawful, as enough had not changed to entitle the authority to stop consulting on the options and there were no bars to the grant of relief. 

University – Student. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Office of the Independent Adjudicator's decision that his complaint about the termination of his registration as a medical student was not justified. It was not shown that the defendant's approach had been irrational. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection, following an application by the deputy of the patient H, held that the gratatious payment of £23,000 per annum to the deputy was in H's best interests. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal against early revocation of a deportation order that had been made against the respondent foreign national. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had been aware of, and had taken into account, all of the relevant aspects of the public interest in the deportation of foreign offenders and, on the evidence that had been before it, had reached a conclusion that had been open to it, namely that there were 'exceptional' circumstances.