Latest Cases

Advocate – Complaint – Inadequate professional services. Court of Session: Allowing an advocate's appeal against a decision of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission upholding a complaint against him, the court held that the Commission had made at least one fundamental error, over and above the accepted inadequacy of the reasons given for the decision; that there was no good reason to remit the matter to the Commission for a fresh adjudication; and that it should substitute its own decision for that of the Commission, namely that the advocate did not provide an inadequate professional service. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection considered several cases before it in the light of guidance from the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal on the subject of deprivation of liberty in the context of Sch 1A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which contained a scheme whereby a managing authority of a hospital or care home was allowed to deprive a patient or resident of his or her liberty. 

Contract – Termination of contract. The Chancery Division held that Sainsbury's had been entitled to terminate a conditional agreement for the purchase of a stadium from the defendant, Bristol Rovers (1883) Ltd, where a condition precedent of the contract which required Sainsbury's to obtain an acceptable store planning permission to redevelop the stadium as a supermarket, had not been satisfied. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to curtail his leave to remain, to detain him and to remove him from the United Kingdom. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that, as the claimant had provided a local address in Pakistan, the Secretary of State had not been entitled to rely upon deemed notice of the curtailment of leave and to conclude that it had not been possible to give notice to the claimant. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant applied, under s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to quash the decision by an inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to grant outline planning permission to erect 73 dwellings, contending that the screening opinion adopted by the second defendant local planning authority had been unlawful. The application was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that, on a fair reading of the screening opinion, the planning officer had not failed to have regard to the issue of cumulative impact. Further, the reasoning, albeit brief, had not been inadequate. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's failure to take enforcement action against the interested parties' motocross track, and its decision to grant planning permission for extended use and a noise attenuation barrier. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no error in the authority's approach to enforcement as the correct questions had been addressed. Further, it had been entitled to conclude that the proposed development would result in an improvement to amenity with a reduction in noise levels when compared to the existing use. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. In a case with an application by a deputy under s 18(1)(b) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for 'the sale, exchange, charging, gift or other disposition of a patient's property, the Court of Protection allowed the application in circumstances where the disposition was to pay the school fees of the patient's brother and such payment was in the patient's best interests. 

Rates – Exemption. The issue on the appeal was whether a hereditament was exempt from domestic rates under s 51 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 as agricultural land or as comprising agricultural buildings within Sch 5 to that Act. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) had been correct to hold, on the facts of the case, that the hereditament was not a market garden but, rather, was nursery ground, for the purposes of Sch 5 to the Act. 

Company – Shareholder. The Chancery Division granted the claimant minority shareholder of a company (BL), permission to continue a derivative action brought against the director of companies, owned by BL, who was alleged to have breached his fiduciary duties, resulting in loss to the companies. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The claimant local planning authority sought the committal of the defendant for contempt of court by reason of breaches of an injunction in relation to unauthorised use of land. The Queen's Bench Division held that the appropriate sentence was one of four months' imprisonment, but that would be suspended provided the defendant adhered to the timings set out in the undertakings which were accepted and the court's order.