Latest Cases

Partnership – Dissolution. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, following the dissolution of the partnership that the parties had formed, the claimant had not been entitled to exercise his rights under a settlement agreement, owing to his failure to satisfy a condition precedent that he should provide information as to the identities of the creditors of the partnership. 

Insurance – Reinsurance. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, the claimant company was not entitled to avoid two reinsurance treaties and could not recover the sum of around US$5.15m paid to the defendant under the treaties because, had a fair presentation of the defendant's position been given, it was not more likely than not that the claimant's representative would have refused to agree the treaties. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The local authority applied for care orders in respect of two children. The authority pursued findings that bruising sustained by one of the children had been inflicted upon him either by the mother or her partner. The Family Court, in dismissing the applications, held that the broad canvas of the evidence demonstrated that, on the balance of probabilities, the bruising sustained by the child had been accidental. In light of that conclusion, and in circumstances where those allegations represented the only issue that the local authority had with the care of the children by their mother and her partner, the threshold criteria, under s 31(2) of the Children Act 1989, were not satisfied. 

Practice and procedure – Appellate jurisdiction. Fee-paid immigration judges complained to the employment tribunal that they were treated less favourably than salaried judges. The claims of the appellants were stayed.The tribunal ruled that the lead claimant had not established that there was less favourable treatment (the decision). The lead claimant did not appeal. The appellants sought to appeal the decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the appeal, held that it had jurisdiction under s 21 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to hear the appeal and that the tribunal had erred in failing to give adequate reasons for finding that the claim of less favourable treatment had not been established. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division, in the mother's absence, made special guardianship orders in favour of the maternal grandparents, together with 12 month supervision orders in favour of the local authority in respect of each of the three children. Parental responsibility for two of the children were plainly made out in the case. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve two sentences of 18 months' imprisonment for fraud committed in 2001 and 2002. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the appellant's extradition would not breach arts 6 or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Extradition – Appeals – 'Territory' – Human rights – Extraneous considerations. High Court of Justiciary: In an appeal by a British citizen, who was convicted of drink driving and negligent manslaughter in Taiwan, against a sheriff's decision sending his case to the Scottish Ministers to decide whether he should be extradited to Taiwan, the court held that the sheriff had not erred in holding that Taiwan was a 'territory' for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003, or in concluding that the appellant had received a fair trial in Taiwan; the evidence did not demonstrate a 'reasonable chance' or 'serious possibility' that the appellant, if extradited, might be punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race or nationality; and parties should be allowed a further opportunity, at an evidential hearing, to lead evidence on the issue of whether, if extradited, the appellant would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading conditions in Taipei prison. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. In a personal injury claim arising out of a collision between the claimant cyclist and a police car, the judge had found that the driver of the car had been negligent. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissing the defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner's appeal, held that there had been no objection to the finding of facts made by the judge such as to enable the court to interfere. 

Housing – Homeless person. The appellant had rejected an offer of permanent accommodation made by the respondent local authority, at which points its housing duty to her was discharged. The reviewing officer confirmed the decision and the appeal to the county court was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the reviewing officer had been entitled to find that there was no medical evidence that a property of its type would have the consequence that the appellant's mental health would be so affected by it as to make it reasonable for her to refuse to accept it in all the circumstances of the case. Further, the officer had conscientiously recognised the public sector equality duty and had been at pains to acquire all information relevant for that purpose. 

Limitation of actions – Triennium. Court of Session: In an action, raised in December 2004, in which the pursuer sought damages for physical and mental abuse he allegedly suffered between 1965 and 1971 whilst at a children's home run by the defenders, the court concluded that it was not prepared to exercise the discretion in terms of s 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 Act to allow the action to proceed notwithstanding the expiry of the triennium in April 1979, as it was not equitable to allow it to proceed given the material prejudice the defenders had suffered as a result of the delay in bringing the action.