Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing him leave to remain in the United Kingdom, based on his rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, he relied on letters of support from responsible figures within his local community. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that, had there been a full consideration of the material concerning art 8 of the Convention, the decision might not have been the same. Further, the Secretary of State's supplementary decision failed to deal with relevant factors raised in the letters. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Disclosure against parties to proceedings. In the course of a tendering dispute, the claimant, which was an unsuccessful tenderer, made applications for disclosure and for the future conduct of the case. The Technology and Construction Court allowed the application in part and made findings regarding the extent of disclosure permitted. 

Contract – Loan contract – Repayment of loan. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuer sought payment of £215,367, which was the total sum repayable in respect of loans he made to a football club and which he said was repayable on demand in the absence of any contrary agreement, the court was satisfied on the evidence taken as a whole that agreement was reached that the sums the pursuer loaned would not be repaid until the club was able to repay them. 

Contract – Warranty. The parties had contracted for the design and installation of offshore wind turbines. There was failure in the foundations and a dispute arose regarding who was liable for the cost of remedial works. The judge found that the claimant contractor had been in breach of a warranty that the foundation would have a 20 year service life, but that it was not in breach of other clauses as contended for by the defendant employers. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal, as there had been no such warranty. The defendants' cross-appeal was allowed, as the claimant had been in breach of a provision regarding testing of the designs. 

Extradition – Disclosure/recovery of documents. Sheriff Court: In an extradition application under Pt 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 in which the US Government sought the respondent's extradition for prosecution on serious fraud charges, and in which he asked the court to order disclosure/recovery of all correspondence relating to him between the Scottish Ministers' Civil Recovery Unit—who were pursuing a proceeds of crime application against him in Court of Session—and the US prosecution authorities, the court held, inter alia, that the application as regards disclosure was incompetent and that it must also fail as regards recovery of documents, being entirely speculative and irrelevant to the extradition request. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 55 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax), in the version in force until 1 January 2010, should be interpreted as not applying where the recipient of the supplies of services had been identified for VAT purposes both in the member state in which the services had physically been carried out and in another member state, and later only in the other member state, and the tangible movable property to which those services related had been dispatched or transported out of the member state in which the services had been physically carried out not following the supplies of services but following the later sale of the goods. 

Bankruptcy – Sequestration. Sheriff Court: In sequestration proceedings in which the respondent argued that sequestration should not be granted because the existence of a standard security in the petitioners' favour over subjects owned by her brother-in-law met the terms of s 12(3A) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 in that she had thereby given or shown that there was 'sufficient security for the payment of' the debt in question, the court rejected that argument, concluded that the sheriff had erred in dismissing petition and refusing sequestration, and awarded sequestration. 

Practice – Judgment. The claimant had defaulted on a loan from a bank and receivers had been appointed in respect of its properties, which were charged to the bank (the properties). The claimant, with the receivers acting as agents, had entered into a contract for the sale of the properties to the defendant. The completion of the sale did not take place by the specified date and the claimant's solicitors served the defendant with notice to complete, under the sale contract. The defendant failed to complete within the specified time and the claimant rescinded the sale contract and the premises were sold to another party at auction. The claimant sought declarations that, among other things, the contract had been terminated by rescission. The claimant applied for summary judgment. The issue was whether a valid notice to complete had been served in accordance with the sale contract. The Chancery Division, in granting the application, held that the notice had been a valid notice to complete and that the claimant had been entitled to and had rescinded the sale contract. The proper 'party' to the sale contract who could give a notice to complete was the seller, the claimant, and not the claimant acting through the receivers. 

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a suspended sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed on the 90 year old offender in respect of historical sexual offences had been unduly lenient. The court imposed a total sentence of five years' imprisonment to be served immediately. 

Minor – Guardian. The father of a child had cared for her, with support, for six months prior to a final hearing in public law proceedings. A special guardianship order was made in favour of a non-relative in respect of a child, the judge having ruled out the father as a realistic option to care for the child. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, set the order aside due to a number of procedural defects in the matter, including a failure to carry out a comparative welfare analysis of the two realistic options.