Latest Cases

Coroner – Inquest. The Divisional Court, in refusing the claimant's application to reopen the defendant coroner's inquest into the death of his son, held that the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service subsequently considered that there had been a case of gross negligence manslaughter to answer did not demonstrate that the coroner had improperly concluded there had been no unlawful killing. Further, the coroner's decision could not be quashed on the basis that he might have been acting unlawfully in having reached a conclusion contrary to the evidence. 

Immigration – Detention. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claim by the claimant that he was entitled to damages following detention for false imprisonment arising out of detention by the defendant at an Immigration Removal Centre. In so doing, he found that the defendant had breached his own rules in in deciding to maintain detention despite a report being made under rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules; SI 2001/238. 

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. 

Arbitration – Arbitrator. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's application, under s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, challenging an award on jurisdiction. It held, among other things, that there was a valid arbitration provision and there had been neither an agreed abandonment of arbitration nor a tacit abandonment to be inferred from the conduct or lack of conduct of the defendant. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Civil and Commercial matters. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things that, art 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 should be interpreted as meaning that a complaint lodged with an investigating magistrate seeking to join a civil action to proceedings fell within the scope of that regulation in so far as its object was to obtain monetary compensation for harm allegedly suffered by the complainant. 

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. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by the Entry Clearance Officer against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) that had determined that a child adopted in Algeria was an 'extended family member' within the meaning of reg 8 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 21006/1003, and therefore entitled to be issued with an EEA family member permit to enter the United Kingdom. The court held that she was not a family member within the meaning of art 2 of Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 2004/38 and reg 7 of the Regulations and, consequently, she did not fall within art 3 of the Directive read together with reg 8 of the Regulations. 

Subrogation – Circumstances in which doctrine applicable. The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the appellant, M, against a finding that the respondent bank had been entitled to claim a charge over the freehold of her property by invoking a right to be subrogated to an unpaid vendor's lien over the freehold. It held that, among other things, M had been unjustly enriched at the expense of the bank, albeit not because of any fault of hers, and the bank had a valid unjust enrichment claim against M, which was properly reflected in its claim to be subrogated.