Latest Cases

Human rights – Rights to respect for private and family life. The applicants, a professional sportsman and his wife, applied to restrain publication by the respondent newspaper of details of an affair that he had been engaged in before his marriage in circumstances where an amount of information was already in the public domain. The Queen's Bench Division granted a temporary injunction pending a full hearing. The applicants' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been engaged and the proposed interference with those rights, in exercise of the respondent's rights under art 10 of the Convention, was not proportionate to the intended aim. 

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 

Criminal law – Murder. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that there was an additional common law qualification or exception to the inviolable nature of legal professional privilege. It would be appropriate to impose a requirement that particular individuals could be present at discussions between an individual and his lawyers if there was a real possibility that the meeting was to be misused for a purpose, or in a manner, that involved impropriety amounting to an abuse of the privilege that justified interference. 

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. 

Damages – Personal injury. Judgement was given in respect of the claimant's claim against the defendant hospital with damages to be assessed at 50% of the value of the full value of the claim. The Queen's Bench Division made various awards in relation to the claimant's future care and made findings to enable the parties to agree final sums to be awarded under various heads. 

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. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection affirmed an order previously made appointing two of the patient's children to act as deputies for properties and financial affairs following a purported appeal by his other children. The factor of magnetic importance was that the patient had named the two children in his will, which suggested that he trusted them to deal with his affairs and that they would act fairly towards their siblings. 

Equity – Tracing. The Court of Appeal of Jersey had upheld a finding that the defendants were constructive trustees of sums that had been paid as bribes and which the claimants had sought to recover through the doctrine of tracing. The defendants contended that they were not liable for the sum that the court had found. The Privy Council held that it could not be said that there could never be backward tracing, or that the court could never trace the value of an asset whose proceeds were paid into an overdrawn account. On the facts of the case, the defendants were liable to account for the full sum found by the court. 

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary proceedings. The Administrative Court held that the question of whether or not, under r 4(5) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, more than five years had elapsed since events giving rise to an allegation of fitness impairment of the appellant general practitioner was an objective question of precedent or jurisdictional fact and the date stated in the complaint against him had been wrong, leading the registrar into material error. Accordingly, the court had power to intervene to quash the decision and remit the matter for reconsideration. 

Company – Director. The applicants, in their capacity as liquidators of Micra Contracts Ltd (the Company), brought an application, under s 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, against the respondent directors. The Companies Court held that, among other things, whether the subjective or objective test was applied, on the evidence, the respondents had acted in breach of their duties under s 172 of the Companies Act 2006. The court proposed to order that the respondents restore the sum of £72,225.66 to the Company.