Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Planning permission – Wind turbines. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion by an appellant who had appealed against a decision by a Local Review Body (LRB) of a local authority to grant planning permission for the erection of two wind turbines near her home, the court held that the Lord Ordinary had not fallen into any error of law in refusing the appeal, and the LRB's decision letter said enough in its own terms and by reference to other material to satisfy the court that the LRB's decision was within the powers of Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and that it complied with the relevant statutory requirements. 

Criminal law – Prosecutor. The claimant sought permission for judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Service's (the CPS) decision to prosecute him for rape, despite a previous decision not to proceed, and a judge's decision not to adjourn the hearing pending the determination of that challenge. The Divisional Court, in refusing permission, held that it was not remotely arguable that the CPS's decision had been irrational or unreasonable and the separate challenge to the judge's decision fell because that challenge failed. The judgment was citable as authoritative in relation to the proper approach to the Director of Public Prosecution's guidance on a victim's right to review and to claims made in respect of decisions to charge where the original decision had been not to charge. 

Coroner – Inquest. The claimant applied for judicial review, seeking the quashing of an inquest's conclusion that her son had taken his own life while in custody. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inquest had been complaint with art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the defendant coroner's directions to the jury had not been wrong. 

Criminal law – Company. The defendant civil engineering design company appealed against its conviction for two health and safety offences. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had correctly determined that the issue as to whether there had been a material risk had been a matter for the jury and that there had been ample evidence of material risk. 

Parent and child – International child abduction. Court of Session: Refusing a father's petition for an order for the return to Australia of his two daughters, aged six and eight, who had been wrongfully removed to Scotland by their mother, the court held that the father had acquiesced in the wrongful removal of the children, that evidence of what occurred during mediation held in Scotland was admissible, and that it would not be appropriate to return the children from Scotland to Australia. 

Bank – Duty of care. The Mercantile Court dismissed the claimants' case against the defendant bank for compensation for their losses on the sale of their investment portfolio. The court held that in giving the advice that it had done the defendant had not acted negligently, in breach of contract, or in breach of its statutory duties under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Conduct of Business Sourcebook Rules. 

Repudiation – Implied repudiation. The Commercial Court held that the defendant television company had wrongfully terminated the claimant company's contract with it. The events that the defendant had described as fundamental breaches of the agreement between the parties had not been, and so the defendant had not been entitled to terminate the agreement. In purporting to do so, it had itself been in repudiatory breach of the agreement. 

Costs – Interest on costs. The Commercial Court considered the date from which interest, under s 17 of the Judgments Act 1838, should run on costs payable by the claimant. Having considered the applicable principles, it ordered that interest on the costs payable by the claimant to the defendants and to the second third party was to run at the Bank of England Base Rate plus 2% from the dates when the costs had been incurred until a date three months after the orders for costs had been made, and at the rate prescribed by s 17 of the Act thereafter. 

Estoppel – Convention. The proceedings concerned a refusal to register the transfer of shares in a company where, it was alleged, there were pre-emption rights in place. The judge found that there was clear evidence to support an assumption, common to both parties, that there were no valid rights of pre-emption in relation to the shares. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been correct and that the authorities did not suggest that estoppel by convention was confined to cases of mistake. A mistaken recollection was not legally different from a state of forgetfulness. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Societe des produits Nestle SA against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word mark 'NOURISHING PERSONAL HEALTH'.