Latest Cases

Privilege – Legal professional privilege. The claimants applied for declarations that the first defendant law firm had failed to comply with their subject access requests and orders, under s 7(9) of the Data Protection Act 1998, requiring it to do so. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that the legal professional privilege exclusion included documents in respect of which disclosure could be resisted in Bahamian proceedings and it had not been reasonable or proportionate for the first defendant to carry out the necessary search. 

Damages – Personal injury. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the actions of both claimants in respect of a personal injury suffered by the wife and the Post Traumatic Stress suffered by the husband as a result of the witnessing of his wife's injury. Although there had been negligence on the part of the defendant hospital in not administering aspirin, that negligence had not caused the wife's injury and although the husband had been shocked, there had been no appreciation of a horrifying event as required for a secondary victim. 

Jurisdiction – High court. The claimants applied for a Civil Restraint Order in respect of the defendant, part of the order extending to proceedings in the Employment Tribunal (the ET). The defendant opposed the making of the order on the basis that the High Court did not have supervisory jurisdiction over inferior courts and tribunals and that there was no statutory power to make a CRO relating to proceedings in the ET. The Queen's Bench Division found that the High 

Charity – Cy-près doctrine. The appellant trustees appealed against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (Charity), amending the scheme created by the fourth respondent Charity Commission on the basis that one purpose of the trusts was to retain the recreation ground as an open space for recreational purposes. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), in allowing the appeal, held that the trusts had not been created to preserve the recreation ground in specie as open space. 

Contempt of court – Committal. Where the applicant was seeking the court's permission to commit the respondent for contempt of court for the alleged making of false statements, the Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application on the basis that the committal proceedings would not be in the public interest. 

Landlord and tenant – Forfeiture of lease. The appellants had been refused relief from forfeiture following the breaches of a head lease. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed their appeal as the judge had misdirected himself in concluding that relief should be refused in the circumstances. The appellants were given conditional relief from forfeiture, dependent upon their selling their leasehold interest within six months. 

Landlord and tenant – Possession. The present appeal turned primarily on whether the judge, in dismissing the claimant freehold owner's claim for possession of a plot on a naturist resort from the defendant tenants, had been right to find that the tenancy had been one under which a dwelling-house was let as a separate dwelling for the purposes of s 1 of the Housing Act 1988, and so gave the defendants an assured tenancy. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that, among other things, the judge had been correct to conclude on the evidence that the chalet, when constructed, had been part of the land. 

Contempt of court – Interference with due administration of justice. The respondents applied for orders striking out the claims against them for contempt. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was no proper basis on which the contempt claim should be struck out. There was a substantial case to the effect that the course of justice had been comprehensively perverted and that the respondents had played their part. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant transport authority sought to withdraw an admission of liability made by its claims handling company in relation to an accident by the claimant when he fell off his bike. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application on the basis that the defect was clearly visible and also under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, the defendant was not prevented from obtaining a contribution or indemnity. 

Landlord and tenant – Recovery of possession. Sheriff Court: In an action in which landlords sought an order for recovery of possession of heritable property following the tenant's second conviction for being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, the court held that it was reasonable to grant decree in favour of the pursuer, and having regard to its assessment of the defender's evidence it was not appropriate to adjourn the proceedings to allow him to demonstrate that he could refrain from drug related activities.