Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Contract – Construction. The Technology and Construction Court held that the applicant company's application to strike out the Pt 20 claim brought against it, or to obtain summary judgment, would fail where the applicant was unable to demonstrate that the first and second defendant companies had no real prospect of succeeding on the Pt 20 claim. 

European Union – Contract. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal brought by the European Commission, by which the Commission had sought to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in ANKO v Commission: T-117/12, by which the General Court had ordered the Commission to pay to ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias certain sums, plus interest, the payment of which had been suspended on the basis of Section II.5(3)(d) of the general terms and conditions included in Annex II to the subsidy contracts relating to certain projects. 

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. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Judge's charge – Mixed statements by accused. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of robbery and murder, attempting to defeat the ends of justice and possessing heroin, who contended that the trial judge had misdirected the jury as to the significance as evidence of the exculpatory parts of mixed statements he had made, the court held that the jury were misdirected, they were then correctly directed, at least in relation to one statement, but immediately thereafter again misdirected in a fundamental respect, and the misdirection had led to a miscarriage of justice. 

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. 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland for one offence because the 'dual criminality' test had not been satisfied, but dismissed his appeal with respect to the second offence, which was equivalent to the English offence of theft. It further rejected the appellant's appeal based on art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court allowed the claimant's challenge to the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of outline planning permission for some 400 dwellings, on the ground that he had not understood or taken into account the withdrawal of an interim policy, which had been a material consideration.