Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Zimbabwean national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing his application for discretionary leave to remain on the basis that it was inconsistent with that in his sister's case. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State's decision had not explained the distinction between the claimant and his sister, who had been given leave to remain. Further, the Secretary of State had amounted disregarded of the statutory appellate procedure by failing to follow or appeal a judge's order. 

Patent – Infringement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a finding of invalidity of a patent by reason of obviousness. The judge had made no error on the material that had been before him. 

Boundary – Hedge. In the course of the claimant's action in trespass, the parties disputed the boundary between their properties. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the first defendant's appeal, held that the evidence was not sufficient to rebut the presumptions which underlay the hedge and ditch rule. Further, nothing in the general depiction of boundaries in the conveyance to the claimant led to the conclusion that he had obtained anything less than the property along the boundary under the rule. 

Personal injury – Provisional damages. Court of Session: In an action of damages for personal injuries arising out of the pursuer having developed an asbestos-related condition, which settled extrajudicially, the pursuer accepting from all three defenders an offer of provisional damages together with a right to apply to the court for further damages if he developed diffuse plural thickening, lung cancer or mesothelioma, the second defenders refused to accept the wording of a draft joint minute as they sought to reserve the right to put the pursuer to proof on liability in the event that he made an application for further damages if he developed any of those three conditions, however the court held that an offer by a defender to make a payment of provisional damages inherently carried with it an admission of liability. 

Criminal evidence – Corroboration – Dangerous dogs. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal against conviction by an appellant who, after a sheriff repelled her submission of no case to answer, was convicted of a contravention of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the court held that the sheriff was entitled to conclude that there were grounds for a reasonable apprehension that the dog would injure someone and to repel the no case to answer submission, and in light of the findings in fact she had made the sheriff was entitled to find that there were grounds for a reasonable apprehension that the dog would someone if he were to escape from the appellant's garden and to go on to convict the appellant of the charge. 

Criminal evidence – Sexual assault on young child – Sufficiency of evidence – Corroboration. High Court of Justiciary: In an appeal by an appellant who was found guilty of a charge of sexual assault on a young child contrary to s 20 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, the court rejected the appellant's first ground of appeal—that there was insufficient evidence of a sexual assault on a young child contrary to s 20—but it upheld his second ground to the extent of quashing his conviction and substituting a conviction in terms of the amended indictment under deletion of the part of the libel alleging digital penetration of the complainer's anus. 

Child – Protection. The issue before the Administrative Court was whether it was lawful for the defendant local authority to have a policy of retaining child protection records for a period of 35 years after a case had been closed. The court held that the policy was in accordance with the law, had been carefully considered, adapted to the purposes for which it was required, and was applied proportionately and flexibly. 

Misrepresentation – Fraudulent misrepresentation. The Chancery Division held, in dismissing the claimant company's claim regarding a failed agreement to jointly purchase property, that there had been no fraud on the part of the defendants, either deriving from a side letter, or otherwise. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division granted an injunction to the claimant local authority to restrain the defendant from pursuing a course of conduct amounting to harassment. In so doing the court was sure that the defendant would fail to establish one of the statutory defences, under by s 1(3)(a) and (c) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as he could not satisfy the rationality test in making out his avowed purpose of preventing and detecting crime. 

Police – Powers. The complainants contended that the respondent National Crime Agency's authorisation for property interference and for the installation of covert listening devices at their premises was unlawfully obtained. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, in quashing the authorisation, held that the application for the authorisation had failed to disclose material information and the authorisation probably would not have been made or approved in the form it had been.