Latest Cases

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. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding that contact lenses that were marketed purely to alter the user's appearance, rather than to remedy a defect, did not fall within the definition of 'cosmetic product' in art 2(1)(a) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 1223/2009 despite the fact that the outer packaging declared that the product was subject to the 'EU Cosmetics Directive'. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that, art 2(b) of Council Directive (EEC) 93/13 had to be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who practised as a lawyer and concluded a credit agreement with a bank, in which the purpose of the credit was not specified, might be regarded as a 'consumer' within the meaning of that provision, where that agreement was not linked to that lawyer's profession. The fact that the debt that arose out of the same contract was secured by a mortgage taken out by that person in his capacity as representative of his law firm and involved goods intended for the exercise of that person's profession, such as a building that belonged to that firm, was not relevant in that regard. 

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. 

European Union – State aid. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 14 of Council Regulation (EC) 659/1999 and arts 11 and 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) 794/2004 did not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the present proceedings, which, by means of a reference to Regulation 794/2004, provided for the application of compound interest to the recovery of state aid, even though the decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery had been adopted and notified to the member state concerned before that Regulation had entered into force. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. A local authority applied for a care order in respect of a child in circumstances where the parents' first child had died. While the death had been classified as sudden infant death syndrome, concerns had been raised regarding possible abuse. The Family Court, following a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the authority's application as the threshold test under s 31 of the Children Act 1989 had not been passed on the balance of probabilities and there was no likelihood that the new child would suffer significant harm in the parents' care. 

European Union – Community aid. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that sub-para 4 of art 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 2988/95 was to be interpreted as meaning that the limitation which it laid down was applicable not only to proceedings concerning irregularities which led to the imposition of administrative penalties within the meaning of art 5 of that Regulation but also to proceedings which led to the adoption of administrative measures within the meaning of art 4. 

Freedom of information – Exempt information. The Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO) had, during the course of a raid, collected a list of names of journalists who had obtained information through an investigator. The respondent had sought disclosure of those names under a Freedom of Information request. The ICO refused the request, and that was upheld by the Information Commissioner. The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) determined that some of the names should be disclosed. The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) upheld the FTT's decision, as there had been no error of law in its decision that the information in issue was not 'sensitive personal data' within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 and that its disclosure was for a legitimate purpose, rather than an unwarranted intrusion into the journalists' privacy rights. 

Family proceedings – Divorce. The Family Division adjourned the wife's claims for a lump sum and for any adjustment of property order and ordered that the husband was to pay the wife maintenance pending suit until decree absolute and, thereafter, periodical payments at the annual rate of £120,000 per annum. Further, in the circumstances, the husband would be ordered to pay all of the wife's costs of and incidental to all proceedings between them in relation to financial matters heard on and since May 2013, to include costs on any occasion reserved, but to exclude all costs in relation to which it had already been ordered that there be no order, such costs (if not agreed) to be subject to detailed assessment on the indemnity basis. 

Housing – Local authority houses. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his appeal, under s 204 of the Housing Act 1996 (the 1996 Act), from the decision by a reviewing officer of the defendant local authority that the accommodation provided for him was suitable within the meaning of s 210 of the 1996 Act. Among other things, it rejected the appellant's argument that s 210(1) of the 1996 Act imposed upon the authority a duty to carry out an inspection and assessment under s 4 of the Housing Act 2004 before making its decision on suitability.