Latest Cases

Arbitration – Practice. The Commercial Court refused to grant the claimants urgent interim relief under s 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996, namely, an order for disclosure, in support of an LCIA arbitration which they had commenced against the defendants the previous day. The claimants had failed to establish that there was any real urgency, nor any necessity for the order sought. 

Company – Administration. The Companies Court, on an application for specific disclosure, made by the administrators of companies against the applicants (the owner of the companies and one of the companies) and the applicants' cross-application for disclosure, ruled that it was a classic type of case where the court could avoid the cost and expense of disclosure and cross-examination by adopting the alternative course of drawing inferences which were appropriate from any failure on the part of any party to be full and frank with the court, instead of ordering specific disclosure. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Sufficiency of evidence – Unreasonable verdict –Misdirection. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal against conviction by an appellant who was convicted of two charges of being concerned in the supplying of Class B drugs, namely pentylone and mephedrone, the court rejected all nine of the grounds of appeal, which alleged that there was insufficient evidence in relation to each charge, the verdicts on both charges were unreasonable and that the sheriff had misdirected jury in relation to a number of matters. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Commercial Court ruled on, amongst other things, the claimant's applications for summary judgment in respect of money it claimed was due pursuant to two separate written loan agreements. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division held that, in the circumstances, it was in the best interests of the children concerned for contact with their father to be extended in duration and to progress via supervised contact in the community to supervised contact at the father's home. Further, whilst acknowledging the need to conclude the proceedings as a matter of some urgency, a final order governing the contact between the children, their father and any members of the paternal family whom a risk assessment assessed as being able to promote safe contact, would await the outcome of that risk assessment. 

Partnership – Liability of new partners. Court of Session: In an action which the liquidator of a company raised against a firm of solicitors and eight of its partners, contending that the company was defrauded of £90m and alleging that the defenders' dishonestly assisted a director in committing a breach of his fiduciary duties, the court held that there were no averments that would allow the liquidator to lead evidence that three of the defenders, either expressly or tacitly, agreed to take over the existing liabilities of the previous firm and it dismissed the case so far as laid against them; it also refused to allow receipt of a minute of amendment seeking to add five further current and former partners of the firm as defenders, and refused to order the defenders to answer questions about the insurance position. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court held that, when s 54(1) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 provided that, in certain circumstances, the court could make a parental order on the application of 'two people', it was not open to the court to make such an order on the application of one person. Section 54(1) could not be 'read down' in accordance with s 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to enable that to be done. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court granted a local authority's application for an order to transfer care proceedings concerning two children to the Czech Republic and to order the return of the children to the Czech Republic with their maternal grandmother, where to remain living in the United Kingdom would be detrimental to their welfare, posed a risk of significant harm, was against their wishes and where no alternative in terms of their welfare needs could be seen. 

Sentencing – Careless driving – Failure to report accident. High Court of Justiciary: In an appeal against sentence by an appellant who pled guilty to charges of careless driving and failure to report an accident, the sheriff having found that the two offences were not committed on the same occasion and imposed six penalty points in respect of each charge, discounted in each case to four, the court held, it being accepted that it was incompetent for the sheriff to impose less than five points for the offence of failure to report, that the offences arose on the same occasion and that penalty points should only have been imposed in respect of the charge of failing to report, as that was the offence to which a higher number of penalty points could be attributed: it accordingly allowed the appeal to the extent of quashing the penalty points attributable to the careless driving charge and increasing those attributable to the charge of failing to report to five. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The Family Division dismissed the applicant mother's application for summary return to France of her son, T, whom the respondent father had removed from the jurisdiction and taken to England. It held that, in the circumstances, and given T's objections, it would be inappropriate to return T to France under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980.