Latest Cases

Practice – Striking out. The Wrexham County Court held that the proceedings brought by the claimant were not a nullity in the sense of being incurably bad by reason of the fact that, when they were commenced, the cause of action was vested not in the claimant but in his trustee in bankruptcy. However, the continued conduct of the present proceedings by the claimant would be an abuse of process unless the irregularity in their constitution, namely, that the cause of action was not vested in the person pursuing them, was remedied. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant father's appeal against the dismissal of his application for contact with his son, B, who was 12 years old. The court held that, in circumstances where the mother showed the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and B had expressed a wish to have no contact with the father, the judge had been entitled to conclude that contact would not have worked. 

Criminal evidence – Mutual corroboration. High Court of Justiciary: In a case in which the accused was charged with two charges of lewd and libidinous practices at common law, one involving his nephew and the other his niece, and the Crown relied on mutual corroboration of each charge by the other for a sufficiency of evidence on each charge, the court upheld a submission of no case to answer and acquitted the accused of both charges, concluding that the underlying similarity of conduct in the two charges was lacking, with the consequence that the jury would not be entitled to apply the rule of mutual corroboration. 

Family proceedings – Practice. In the course of care proceedings involving parents from Poland who were unable to read court documents in English, the Family Court ruled that the cost of translating the documents which were filed and served during the proceedings was to be paid by the party who required the translation, provided that that party was publicly funded. 

Company – Minority shareholder. The claimant had alleged wrongful behaviour by the defendants, who were or had been directors of a company listed on the Alternative Investment Market. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's application for permission to bring a derivative action pursuant to s 261 of the Companies Act 2006, as the balance fell heavily against the continuance of the action. Any benefit that it might have brought to the company was insufficient, or insufficiently clear, to outweigh the costs and disruption that it would entail. It was also not an action that had gained the support of the company's members, even those disinterested members. 

Company – Shares. The Chancery Division considered an application by the joint liquidators of a company against its respondent directors, in which the liquidators sought, among other things, a declaration that the respondents were guilty of misfeasance and breach of trust in retaining properties that had belonged to the company. The application was dismissed, save in relation to the cancellation of a share redemption and the consequent effect upon properties which had remained in the commercial arrangement. However, in the light of the respondents' conduct, no relief would be granted to them under s 727 of the Companies Act 1985 or s 1157 of the Companies Act 2006 as applicable. 

Power of attorney – Enduring power of attorney. The Court of Protection revoked a lasting power of attorney (LPA) made on behalf of ARL, where her son, who was one of her two attorneys, had behaved in a way that both contravened his authority and was not in ARL's best interests by misappropriating funds and failing to repay them. The court was satisfied that the revocation of the LPA was in accordance with the law and was necessary for the prevention of crime. 

Criminal procedure – Appeal – Deceased person – Transfer of rights of appeal. High Court of Justiciary: In a petition by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), who had received an application for a review of the murder conviction of a deceased person from the respondents, who were family members of two of the deceased's victims, in which the SCCRC sought the court's opinion on the interpretation of a statutory provision dealing with the transfer of a deceased person's rights of appeal, the court held that the petition was competent and not premature, and that the relatives of the deceased victims, including the respondents, had no 'legitimate interest' to institute an appeal against the deceased's conviction should the petitioners make a reference. 

Sentencing – Non-harassment order. High Court of Justiciary: In a case in which the appellant was convicted of a charge of behaving in a threatening or abusive manner and the sheriff made a non-harassment order requiring him to refrain from approaching, or contacting, or attempting to approach or contact, his wife and three children in any way, the court held that the sheriff did not have power to make a non-harassment order in respect of conduct towards the children as it did not see the only charge in respect of which the appellant was convicted as specifying 'an offence involving misconduct towards' the children; rather, it was an offence involving misconduct towards the appellant's wife. The court accordingly quashed the order and substituted one restricted to conduct in respect of the complainer, the appellant's wife. 

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant lead clinician's appeal against a suspension of his registration for six months. Among other things, it held that the respondent's fitness to practice panel had been entitled to conclude that the appellant had not recognised or had remedied his wrongdoings and would not repeat them so that his fitness to practice was impaired.