Latest Cases

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division dismissed the defendant's application to strike out the particulars of claim in proceedings concerning an alleged breach of confidence. It held that the claim was not barred by limitation and that, although damages in the case were not likely to be large, the case was not rendered an abuse of process by reason of being a nugatory claim. 

Company – Administration. The Chancery Division allowed the Official Receiver's application, under s 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986, for an order that the respondent, a Hong Kong resident, was to produce a witness statement, with supporting documents. Section 236(3) of the Act had extra-territorial effect and, provided the considerations identified in previous authority were satisfied, the court had jurisdiction to require a person resident outside the jurisdiction to submit to the court an account of his dealings with a company, or to produce any books, papers or other records in his possession or under his control relating to the company. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant Afghani national's application for judicial review, held that he had not been unlawfully detained in immigration detention. The local authority's age assessment was sufficient for immigration officers to treat him as an adult and that had not changed on receipt of his birth certificate, the authenticity of which was doubted. 

Library – Public library. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's application for judicial review, determined the meaning of the defendant local authority's decision with respect to libraries and held that any challenge to a decision to close the libraries was premature. It further held that the authority's decision had not been irrational or its consultation unlawful. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Chancery Division dismissed the first defendant's application challenging its jurisdiction to hear claims for commission said to be due for the sale of properties and for breach of fiduciary duty, among other things, where he had waived any jurisdiction point when he had submitted to the jurisdiction in earlier actions and where the third claimant had given and undertaking to stay or dismiss an action in Kuwaiti in so far as it reflected the relief sought in the present action. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court found certain facts in relation to a case in which a child C1 in the female public toilets. The facts as found meant that the threshold criteria of s 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 had been made out and the court was satisfied that the only order that could and should be made for C1 was a care order with a long term fostering plan. 

Contempt of court – Juror. High Court of Justiciary: Dismissing a petition to the nobile officium by a petitioner who was selected for jury service at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court and was found in contempt of court after she informed the sheriff clerk that she had checked Facebook because she thought she knew the sister of a Crown Witness who had given evidence on the second day of the trial, the court held that the petitioner was in contempt because in general terms and in more specific terms in relation to the internet and Facebook the sheriff had given the jury a clear instruction not to make enquiries in relation to the case and the petitioner had disobeyed it. 

Practice – Transfer of proceedings from or to the Technology and Construction Court. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claimant's application to transfer his claim brought against the defendant in the Central London County Court (Technology and Construction List), into the present court. It was not appropriate for the low-value claim to be transferred. 

Criminal law – Double jeopardy. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was charged with sodomy in relation to an 11-year old complainer, having been acquitted in 2009 of a charge that, between the same dates and at the same place, he used lewd, indecent and libidinous practices towards the same complainer, and whose plea in bar of trial founding on s 7 of the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 was repelled, the court held that the act now charged (sodomy) did not arise out of 'the same, or largely the same, acts' as those lewd practices originally libelled: the single occasion act of sodomy was not inextricably linked to the various acts of touching libelled in the earlier indictment. 

Agreement – Written agreement. The Chancery Division considered the claimant's claim for payment of £12m and the transfer of property into her name. It held that an agreement between the claimant and the defendant, who was the son of the former Saudi King, to that effect had been valid.