Latest Cases

Proceeds of crime – Restraint order – Recall: Court of Session: Refusing an application presented by way of note for recall of a restraint order granted in 2003 

Housing – Homeless person. The claimant sought relief against two local housing authorities, alleging breach of their statutory duties to assess his children as being in need and to provide accommodation. The Administrative Court, declared that the first authority's failure to assess the needs of the claimant's children had been unlawful. Further, it declared that the second authority had breached its statutory duty by failing to give notice to the first authority that the family had been placed in its area, by having failed to make a lawful referral and by failing to secure that accommodation had been available of the claimant and his family in the interim. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding, amongst other things, that art 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (on insolvency proceedings) should be interpreted as applying to a situation in which a payment, challenged by an insolvency administrator, of a sum of money attached before the opening of the insolvency proceedings had been made only after the opening of those proceedings 

Human rights – Right to fair trial. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings between his arrest for attempted importation of cocaine and the refusal of leave to appeal against a confiscation order had been incompatible with art 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights held that the delays attributable to the state authorities totalled three years in that 11-year period, in violation of art 6(1) of the Convention. However, financial compensation was refused, as finding a violation had constituted adequate just satisfaction and the court had no power to dismiss the confiscation order. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee sought ill-health retirement on the basis of chronic degenerative condition of his spine. Shortly after doctors had reported that he was permanently unfit to work, the employee was observed displaying a range of movements. He was subsequently dismissed on the basis that he had allegedly exaggerated his condition. The employment tribunal held that, while the employee had genuinely believed in the employee's guilt and that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses, the employer had not had reasonable grounds for its belief. The tribunal further allowed a claim for wrongful dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, allowing the employer's appeal, held that the tribunal had taken the wrong approach and had substituted its own view as to whether the employee had exaggerated. The tribunal had further erred in its conclusion on wrongful dismissal. The claim was remitted. 

Copyright – Infringement. The principal issue raised by the appeal was whether a technical drawing containing details of a septic tank was capable of protection under the Copyright Act (Ch 323). The Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas held that it was not and reversed the decision of the trial judge who had held that it was. The Privy Council held that the decision of the Court of Appeal on that issue had been wrong. The judge had been right in having held that, although the appellants could not prevent copying the septic tank itself, they had been entitled to prevent copying of the technical drawing. 

Registered land – Rectification of registered title. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was in dispute with the respondent as to the precise boundary of her property and who applied to the Lands Tribunal for rectification of the registered titles, the court held that the tribunal correctly concluded that the appellant's title was not capable of being construed so as to convey the solum of the track in front of her property, and was accordingly not habile to found the acquisition of title to that area by positive prescription, and it rejected arguments that the tribunal erred in relation to the respondent's possession of the disputed area and in its consideration of prejudice to her. 

Claim form – Service. The claimant bank had been given permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction in relation to claims for breach of contract and unlawful conspiracy. The third and fifth defendants unsuccessfully challenged the jurisdiction of the English courts. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal and held that the judge had erred in granting permission when the gateway requirements in para 3.1(3), (9) and (20) of Practice Direction 6B had not been met. Further, the case was more closely connected with Russia, so the judge had erred in finding England to be the appropriate forum. Finally, he had erred in the exercise of his general discretion. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant transferred 1,000 shares in a company incorporated in Jersey to the first defendant as part of a joint venture. He brought a claim contending that the first defendant had failed to pay him the agreed share price and, against the two defendants, for unlawful means conspiracy. The Chancery Division held that on the evidence, the claim against the first defendant for payment of the price of the shares succeeded. The claim for unlawful means conspiracy failed where the claimant had failed to establish that he had suffered any loss by reason of the matters complained of. 

Practice – Summary judgment. When the defendant purported to terminate a haulage and warehousing agreement with the claimant, the claimant issued proceedings alleging breach of the contractual arrangements between them based on conduct over the preceding years. The defendant applied for summary judgment. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claims, but allowed the claimant an opportunity to re-formulate its claim in respect of periods not covered by variations to the agreements where it was possible that a re-worked claim would have a real prospect of success.