Latest Cases

Power of attorney – Enduring power of attorney. The Court of Protection made rulings as to the persons to be appointed as deputies for P, who had Alzheimer's dementia. It allowed her husband's application to appoint P first cousins once removed to act as deputies and dismissed her son's objections. The son, as principal debtor, could not be a deputy due to his conflict of interest. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union made rulings on preliminary issues concerning the interpretation of art 4(3) of Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 2008/95 to approximate the laws of the member states relating to trade marks. The Court held that, among other things, art 4(3) of the Directive had to be interpreted as meaning that, if the reputation of an earlier Community mark was established in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, which might, in some circumstances, coincide with the territory of a single member state, which did not have to be the state in which the application for the later national mark had been filed, it had to be held that the mark had a reputation in the EU. 

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. 

European Union – Taxation. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, holding that art 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union was to be interpreted as preluding rules of a member state that governed a tax integration regime under which a tax-integrated parent company was entitled to neutralisation regarding the add-back of a proportion of costs and expenses, fixed at 5% of the net amount of the dividends received by it from tax-integrated resident companies, when such neutralisation was refused to it under those rules regarding the dividends distributed to it from subsidiaries located in another member state, which, had they been resident, would have been eligible in practice if they so had elected. 

Personal injury – Jury trial – Contributory negligence – Damages. Court of Session: Refusing a motion for a new trial in an action by a pursuer who was bitten on her lip by her brother-in-law's dog, a jury having awarded damages of £5,000 in respect of solatium, concluded that the accident was partly due to the fault of the defender and partly the fault of the pursuer, and allocated 85% of the fault to pursuer and 15% to defender, the court held that the jury's conclusion that responsibility for her injury lay almost entirely with the pursuer was not one with which it was entitled to interfere, and nor did it consider that it was entitled to interfere with the jury's award. 

Contract – Joint venture – Pre-contractual duties of disclosure – Misrepresentation. Court of Session: In a dispute among the parties to a joint venture agreement relating to the development of an area of land, which four of the five parties held title to parts of, in which the pursuers sought reduction of the agreement on the grounds (i) that they entered into it in reliance on a material misrepresentation by the first and second defenders regarding the ownership of first defender's area of land; and (ii) that the first and second defenders were in breach of a duty to disclose material facts to them at the time when the agreement was entered into, the court held that the pursuers' case based on uberrima fides and a duty of disclosure was irrelevant and they had failed to aver any misrepresentation by any of the defenders or anyone speaking on their behalf, and it dismissed the action. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker – Fresh claim. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition by a failed Zimbabwean asylum seeker, who challenged a decision refusing to treat his further submissions as a fresh claim, the court held that anxious scrutiny was applied to the petitioner's further representations and it was satisfied that the decision reached in the challenged decision letter was one which a reasonable decision maker was entitled to make. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Mercantile Court held that there here was no real prospect of the claimant succeeding in its proposed amendment claim in relation to pleading that a contract arose between it and the defendant bank such that the defendant owed the claimant a duty to conduct a review in accordance with the specification it had agreed with the FSA. There was however merit in the claimant's tort claim and therefore and on that basis permission to amend would be given.