Latest Cases

Personal injury – Liability – Damages. Court of Session: In an action by a motorcyclist who underwent a below-knee left leg amputation after he collided in darkness with a milk tanker which was reversing into a farm road and blocking the road on which he was travelling, the court concluded that the accident was caused partly by the fault of the pursuer and partly by the fault of the defenders, that the proportion of blame attributable to the pursuer fell to be assessed at 40%, and that damages for the cost of prosthetics must be calculated in accordance with the defenders' expert's recommendations. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant to the interested party of planning permission to remove conditions of a planning permission, which limited the use of eight buildings to holiday lets. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, whilst there was no express finding of conflict with the development plan in the officers' report, the officers' approach, which had been to examine the impacts of the development proposed, could not be said to have significantly misled the members. Further, the committee had been aware of all material considerations. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The claimant, a member of the Moroccan royal family, brought proceedings against the defendant publisher regarding an article on its website. He submitted that the article had alleged that he had entered into a conspiracy to sabotage the image of the King of Morocco. The Queen's Bench Division held that the article had only been capable of bearing one of the three defamatory meanings pleaded. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Mr Fares Al-Chihabi in which he had sought the annulment of certain European Union regulations and decisions adopted by the European Council concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as those acts related to Mr Fares Al-Chihabi. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellants appealed against orders for their extradition to Lithuania to face criminal prosecutions for abuse of office, theft, forgery and fraudulent management of accounts. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeals, held that there was no risk that the appellants were being prosecuted on account of, or that their trial would be prejudiced because of, their political opinions. There was no evidence of a real risk that the threshold as to art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be reached with respect to the prison conditions. Further, the judge had given adequate reasons and further disclosure was not justified. 

Town and country planning – Planning permission. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission to the interested party for a class A1 retail store and related development. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the full impact of the proposed development had not been clearly set out in the officers' report and the committee had not been properly informed of the true extent of the likely harm. Further, nowhere in the officers' report had it been explained why benefits under s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 had been 'necessary' to have made the development acceptable. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal brought by Voss of Norway ASA (Voss) in which it sought to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union, by which that court had refused to annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), relating to invalidity proceedings between Nordic Spirit AB (publ) and Voss, concerning the registration by Voss of a three-dimensional Community trade mark. 

Local government – Council tax. The claimant sought judicial review of the justices' order for costs of £125 against him in the local authority's favour as costs of obtaining a liability order concerning his unpaid council tax. The Administrative Court set out guidance as to the interpretation and scope of reg 34 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/613. It held that the justices had not had sufficient relevant information, and had erred in failing to make inquiries as to the computation and elements of the £125. Further, the claimant had been denied a fair opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of the proposed order by the authority's failure to provide information as to the calculation of the sum. 

Practice – Amendment. The claimant had brought proceedings in 2008 against the defendants. In 2010, the court had given judgment in the defendants' favour. In the present proceedings, the claimant contended that the 2010 judgment had been acquired as a result of fraud on the part of the defendants and sought permission to amend her particulars of claim to include a claim for damages for conspiracy/deceit. The Chancery Division held that the new claim was not an abuse of process, but that permission for the proposed amendments would not be granted as they included allegations not arising from the same or substantially the same facts as the claim itself. 

Immigration – Deportation. The appellant was believed to be an Algerian national but refused to provide details of his identity. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) decided that he could no longer be detained pending deportation, as there was no reasonable prospect of removing him to Algeria and he was subsequently released on bail. In allowing the appellant's application for judicial review, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that bail could not be granted, under paras 22 and 29 of Sch 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, where a person was unlawfully detained purportedly under para 2(2) of Sch 3 or where a person not currently in detention could not lawfully be detained under that provision. Further, the appellant's appeal against the decision of SIAC to strike out his appeal against the notice of intention to deport, was allowed on the ground that SIAC had failed to address his contention that revealing his identity might put his family at risk in Algeria.